[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ku Meena Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 January, 2026
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6614
1 WP-50625-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 23rd OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 50625 of 2025
KU MEENA MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Awadhesh Kumar Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Pramod Kumar Chaurasia - Govt. Advocate for the State.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India making a prayer to quash the impugned orders dated 30.12.2023 by
which recovery has been imposed upon the petitioner.
2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that case of
petitioner is covered by the judgment passed by the Apex Court in case of
State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334 . He submitted that
petitioner is class-III employee. and recovery cannot be made as per
judgment passed by the Apex Court in case of Rafiq Masih (supra).
Respondents are ignoring the judgment passed by the Apex Court and
passing the impugned order contrary to said judgment amounts to contempt
of Court. It is further submitted that impugned order is bad in law and
deserves to be quashed.
3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State has opposed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6614
2 WP-50625-2025
the petition.
4. Heard the counsel for the parties.
5. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq
Masih (Supra) has carved out exception in regard to recovery of excess
payment to the employee which is reproduced hereinunder:-
"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,
summarize 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:6614
3 WP-50625-2025
(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. It is found that petitioner is class -III employee. Giving an
opportunity to respondents will be unnecessary exercised even if respondents
are heard then same will not change the final outcome of the petition.
7. In view of above, Writ petition is allowed and impugned order
dated 30.12.2023 is quashed. Amount, if any, recovered from petitioner be
returned to her within a period of 30 days from receipt of copy of order
passed today.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
AD/
