[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rammilan Uikey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2026
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25765
1 WP-8371-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 8371 of 2026
RAMMILAN UIKEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri A Rajeshwar Rao - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Namdeo - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India making a prayer to quash order dated 04.09.2025 contained in
Annexure P/2.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that case of
petitioner is squarely covered by judgment passed in case of State of Punjab
and others vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4
SCC 334. It is submitted that order of recovery cannot be passed against a
Class-IV employee. Petitioner will be put to iniquitous position. Excess
payment has been paid to petitioner without false representation made by
him. Petitioner was given salary in pay scale and not fixed pay. It is
submitted that amount is being recovered since for first three years petitioner
is to be paid fixed salary as determined by Collector and not in graded pay
scale.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25765
2 WP-8371-2026
3. Government Advocate appearing for State has opposed the prayer
made by counsel for the petitioner.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Apex Court in para 18 of judgment passed in case of State of Punjab
and others vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4
SCC 334 has held as under :
"18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship,
which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where
payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess
of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions
referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise
the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers,
would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and
Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are
due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment
has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the
order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully
been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been
paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been
required to work against an inferior post.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25765
3 WP-8371-2026
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the
conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be
iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far
outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."
6. In view of paragraph-18 (i) of aforesaid judgment of Apex Court, it
is found that impugned recovery after retirement of petitioner is bad in law.
Accordingly, impugned order dated 04.09.2025 (Annexure-P/2) is quashed.
Amount, if any, recovered from petitioner be returned to him within a period
of 30 days.
7. Petition is disposed off.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
$A
