[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Narayan Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 March, 2026
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20383
1 WP-8389-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 13 th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 8389 of 2026
RAM NARAYAN RAJPUT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ankesh Mishra - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari - Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India making a prayer to quash the orders dated 28/06/2025 contained in
Annexure p-6 and order dated 20/12/2016 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:20383
2 WP-8389-2026
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 employees, or employees who are due to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20383
3 WP-8389-2026
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 orders are quashed. Amount recovered from
the petitioner be returned to him within a period of 30 days from the date of
receipt of certified copy of order passed today.
10. Writ Petition is disposed off .
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
as
