[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Reeta Uikey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 April, 2026
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26282
1 WP-11053-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 2 nd OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 11053 of 2026
SMT. REETA UIKEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Uma Shankar Jayaswal - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Supriya Singh - Govt. Advocate for respondent-State.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India making a prayer to quash the order dated 17.03.2026
(Annexure-P/2), by which recovery has been ordered against him.
2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that recovery of
Rs.4,71,220/- has been made from gratuity of petitioner. Petitioner, who is a
Class-III employee, has retired from service on 31.01.2026 on attaining age
of superannuation. It is submitted that recovery after retirement is illegal. It is
submitted that case of petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of Apex
Court in case of State of Punjab and others vs Rafiq Masih (White
Washer), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and also the Full Bench judgment of
this Court in case of State of M.P. and others vs Jagdish Prasad Dubey, W.A.
No. 815/2017. It is further submitted that impugned recovery has been made
in violation of Circular bearing No.F 9-3/2015/Rule/Four, Bhopal dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26282
2 WP-11053-2026
29.06.2015 and Circular bearing No. F 9-3/2015/Rule/Four, Bhopal dated
08.11.2017 of State Government. On basis of aforesaid, prayer is made for
quashing the impugned order.
3. Govt. Advocate for the State has opposed the prayer made by
counsel for the petitioner.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Petitioner has retired from service on attaining age of
superannuation. State Government, Department of Finance, has issued
Circular bearing No. F 9-3/2015/Rule/Four, Bhopal dated 29.06.2015 and
Circular bearing No. F 9-3/2015/Rule/Four, Bhopal dated 08.11.2017,
wherein specific direction has been given that pension and gratuity cases are
to be finalized 24 months before retirement, as laid down in Rules 57 and 58
of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Services of an
employee is to be verified within such time and if it is not done, then services
is to be verified under Rule 59 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1976. If pension and gratuity cases cannot be resolved 15 days prior
to retirement, then under Rule 74, provisional pension and gratuity is to be
paid. In cases of recovery, action shall be concluded one month before
retirement. In cases of departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings in Court,
Rule 64 is applicable and provisional pension is to be issued. Circular has
been issued that aforesaid provisions are to be strictly followed. It is the
responsibility of Head of Department to issue NOC regarding no pendency
of departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings by date of superannuation
and if such certificate has not been issued one month post retirement, then it
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26282
3 WP-11053-2026
is to be assumed that there is no demand or enquiry pending against a
Government servant. It is also laid down that cases for payment of provident
fund is to be forwarded to AG, MP four months before retirement when
contribution to provident fund stops. All pension cases are to be examined
bi-annually each year on 1st of July and 31st of December.
6. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26282
4 WP-11053-2026
inferior post.
(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."
7. In view of paragraph-18(i) & (ii) of aforesaid judgment of Apex
Court as well as Circulars of State Government, it is found that impugned
recovery after retirement of petitioner is bad in law. Accordingly,
impugned order dated 17.03.2026 contained in Annexure P/2 is quashed.
Amount, if any, recovered from petitioner in pursuance to impugned order be
returned to him within a period of 30 days.
8. Petition is disposed off.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
nd
