[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Kumar Sirothiya vs Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Damoh on 12 March, 2026
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20144
1 WP-3910-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 12 th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 3910 of 2024
RAM KUMAR SIROTHIYA
Versus
KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, DAMOH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prakalp Shrivastva - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Supriya Singh - Govt. Advocate for the State.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India making a prayer to quash the order dated 9.11.2023 contained in
Annexure P/3.
2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that recovery is being
made from the petitioner for excess amount paid. It is submitted that case of the
petitioner is covered with the judgment passed in Apex Court in case of State of
Punjab and others vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4
SCC 334.
3. Counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer made by
counsel for the petitioner.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20144
2 WP-3910-2024
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 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
AGMP 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. In case of Rafiq Masih (supra), Apex Court 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, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20144
3 WP-3910-2024
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. (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. Apex Court has also held in case of Rafiq Masih (supra) that after
retirement, more than 5 years' recovery shall not be made from the employees, as
they are put in iniquitous position.
8. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is found that
impugned order of recovery which is passed after retirement is bad in law.
Procedure laid down in Rules 57 and 58 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1976, and Circulars of State Government dated 29.06.2015 and
08.11.2017 were totally ignored.
9. Accordingly, impugned order dated 9.11.2023 (Annexure P/3) is
quashed. Amount recovered from the petitioner be returned to him within a period
of 30 days.
10. Writ Petition is disposed off .
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
AD/
