Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Balkrishna Barsale Deceased Through ... on 10 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29794
1 WA-861-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 10th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 861 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
BALKRISHNA BARSALE DECEASED THROUGH LRS MRS. VIBHA
BARSALE SHRIVASTAVA
Appearance:
Shri Bhuwan Gautam - Advocate for the appellants/State.
Shri L. C. Patne - Advocate for the respondent .
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Vinay Saraf
Instant intra Court appeal is preferred by State of M.P. and others
assailing order dated 12.09.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.
No.13496/2018, whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent
challenging the recovery from his retiral dues was allowed with a direction
to refund the amount alongwith interest to the respondent.
2. Heard on I.A. No. 2614/2025, which is an application for
condonation of delay occurred in filing the present appeal. As per office
report the present appeal is barred by 102 days.
3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has no objection in
condoning the delay.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29794
2 WA-861-2025
4. Considering the reasons assigned in the application, which is duly
supported by the affidavit and no objection extended by the counsel for the
respondent, application is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned.
5. Heard Shri Bhuwan Gautam, Govt. Advocate on behalf of the
appellants/State and Shri L.C. Patne, learned counsel for the respondent.
6. Respondent preferred the writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India assailing the recovery of sum of Rs. 8,59,202/- from his
retiral dues on account of erroneous pay fixation and access payment made
to him during his service period. The respondent was working on the post of
Dy. Director of Social Justice and superannuated on 31.08.2012. At the time
of calculation of retiral benefits payable to the respondent, the department
sanctioned original pension @ 90% w.e.f. 01.09.2012 and on 22.09.2014
issued an order for recovery of Rs. 8,59,202/- from his retiral dues. The said
order was challenged by the respondent by preferring the writ petition, which
was allowed on 12.09.2024 by the learned Single Judge relying upon the
judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab &
Ors. Vs. Rafique Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 and the Full Bench of this Court
in State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey & Anr.
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine MP 1567 . The learned Single Judge has
further held that no recovery was permissible after the retirement on the
ground of mistake committed in fixation of pay or excess payment of salary
made erroneously. The learned Single Judge further held that the recovery
was not permissible on the basis of the undertaking or the indemnity bond
executed by the employee at the time of retirement. The petition was allowed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29794
3 WA-861-2025
and the direction was issued to refund the recovered amount alongwith
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of recovery till date of payment and
the pay fixation of the respondent/petitioner was maintained.
7. Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Govt. Advocate submits that the
learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the recovery was not
permissible even on the basis of the undertaking executed by the employee
on 12.12.2014. We note that in the present matter, the employee was
superannuated on 31.08.2012 and the alleged undertaking was executed on
12.12.2014 which cannot be enforced in view of the judgement delivered by
the Full Bench of this Court in matter of Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra) as the
re-fixation of pay was done much prior to the date of retirement.
8. Learned G.A. further submits that the employee was Class-II
employee and, therefore, the law laid down in the matter of Rafique Masih
(supra) is not applicable in the case of present employee.
9. We are unable to appreciate this argument advanced by learned
Govt. Advocate as the Supreme Court in the matter of Rafique Masih (supra)
has held that recovery from the retired employees or the employees who are
due to retire within one year of the order of recovery is not permissible and,
therefore, the judgment delivered in the matter of Rafique Masih (supra) is
squarely applicable to the case in hand.
10. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is based on due
appreciation of material available on record and the judgment delivered by
Supreme Court and Full Bench of this Court. The order does not require any
interference. There is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29794
4 WA-861-2025
learned Single Judge. Impugned order is just and proper.
11. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as
to costs.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Vatan
