Smt. Sandhya Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 May, 2026

Author: Vishal Dhagat

Bench: Vishal Dhagat

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34549




                                                              1                               WP-15215-2026
                              IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                                                    ON THE 4 th OF MAY, 2026
                                                WRIT PETITION No. 15215 of 2026
                                                SMT. SANDHYA TOMAR
                                                        Versus
                                      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                   Shri Ved Prakash Nema - Advocate for petitioner through VC.
                                   Shri Kamal Singh Baghel - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.

                                                                  ORDER

Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India making a prayer to quash the order dated 23.12.2025, contained in Annexure P/1.

2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that recovery of Rs. 6,22,332/- has been made from petitioner. 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 29.06.2015 and Circular bearing No. F 9- 3/2015/Rule/Four, Bhopal dated 08.11.2017 of State Government. On basis

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34549

2 WP-15215-2026 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 31.05.2024 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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34549

3 WP-15215-2026 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 inferior post.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34549

4 WP-15215-2026

(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."

7. In view of aforesaid judgment of Apex Court in case of Rafiq Masih (supra) 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 23.12.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 5 is quashed. Amount of Rs.6,22,332/- recovered from petitioner be returned to him within a period of 30 days.

8. Petition is disposed off.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE

vkt