Ramkumari Dohare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33350
1 WP-47786-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
th
ON THE 30 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 47786 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC030316202025
RAMKUMARI DOHARE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR
Appearance:
Shri Shashwat Rao - learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Prabhat Pateriya - learned Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
1. The instant petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution seeking following reliefs:-
"1- That, the record and the status report pertaining to the case a-
/ / / 37 /2022, b / / /74 /2022
पु०अ िभंड आं
कक वेतन पु०अ िभंड आं
कक वेतन
before the Respondent No. 2 may be requisitioned.
2- That, the impugned order herein annexed as ANNEXURE- P-5 &
ΑΝΝEXURE-P-8 dated 15-03-2022 and 18-07-2022 respectively
passed by Respondent may kindly be set aside.
3-That, the respondent may kindly be directed to pay back the amount
in question (Rs. 16,11,822/-) in ANNEXURE- P-5 & ANNEXURE-P-
8 dated 15-03-2022 and 18-07-2022 respectively to the Petitioner with
9% annual interest till final payment.
4- That any other relief doing justice including cost may also be
ordered.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:04:07 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33350
2 WP-47786-2025
PRAYER

Therefore, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly
be pleased
I. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order
dated 15-03-2022 and 18-07-2022 passed by the Respondent No. 2 in
Case No. / / /37 /2022, b- / / /
पु०अ िभंड आं
कक वेतन पु०अ िभंड आं
कक वेतन
74 / 2022 respectively vide ANNEXURE- P-5 & ANNEXURE-P-8.
II. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to
pay back the amount in question(Rs. 16,11,822/-) in ANNEXURE- P-5
& ANNEXURE-P-8 dated 15-03-2022 and 18-07-2022 respectively to
the Petitioner with 9% annual interest till final payment.
III. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems
fit."
2.. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the widow of
Late Ramanand Dohare, who was serving as a Constable in the Madhya Pradesh
Police Department. Her husband was appointed on 01.09.1983 and was granted
time-bound increments during his service as per the departmental policy. It is
submitted that on 09.12.2021, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him on
the allegation of remaining absent from duty and a charge-sheet was issued by the
Superintendent of Police, District Bhind (Annexure P/2). Unfortunately, due to
prolonged illness, the petitioner's husband died on 31.01.2022. Thereafter, his
salary was revised on 15.02.2022. However, the respondents alleged that he had
received excess payment and passed a recovery order dated 15.03.2022 for
₹ 3,43,627/-, including interest (Annexure P/5). It is further submitted that the
departmental inquiry was concluded on 21.03.2022, treating the period from
26.05.2019 to 31.01.2022 as "No Work, No Pay" on account of his absence from
duty (Annexure P/6). The respondents also deducted the alleged recovery amount
from the earned leave encashment payable to the petitioner after her husband's
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:04:07 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33350
3 WP-47786-2025
death, leaving only a meagre balance (Annexure P/7). It is further submitted that

on the basis of the departmental inquiry, another recovery order dated 18.07.2022
was passed for ₹ 12,68,195/- (Annexure P/8). The respondents recovered the
amounts from the service dues of the deceased employee and also compelled the
petitioner to deposit the remaining amounts of ₹ 12,68,195/- and ₹ 1,87,995/-. The
deposit receipts have been filed as Annexure P/9. On these grounds, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the recoveries made from the service dues
of the deceased employee and the petitioner are illegal and arbitrary and deserve to
be set aside.
3 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that the
petitioner's husband was in the habit of remaining absent from duty without
authorisation and had earlier been punished on 52 occasions for such absence. It is
submitted that despite issuance of several show-cause notices, he did not rejoin
duty after proceeding on sick leave on 26.05.2019. A preliminary inquiry was
conducted and, thereafter, a charge-sheet dated 01.09.2021 was issued along with
the relevant documents. However, no reply was submitted by him. It is further
submitted that after receiving information about his death on 31.01.2022, the
departmental inquiry was closed and the competent authority, vide order dated
21.03.2022, treated the period from 26.05.2019 to 31.01.2022 as "No Work, No
Pay". The respondents further contend that an excess salary of ₹ 1,83,577/- along
with interest of ₹ 1,60,050/-, totalling ₹ 3,43,627/-, was paid to the deceased
employee. Another amount of ₹ 12,68,195/- was also found to have been wrongly
paid during the period of unauthorised absence. Therefore, the recovery orders
were passed in accordance with law. On these grounds, learned counsel for the
respondents supports the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the writ
petition.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:04:07 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33350
4 WP-47786-2025
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on

record.
5. The controversy involved in the present case is whether the respondents can
recover the alleged excess payment made to a deceased Government employee
from his widow and other service dues payable to her after his death.
6. The law relating to recovery of excess payment from Government employees
has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab
and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that recovery of excess payment would be
impermissible in certain circumstances, particularly where such recovery would
cause undue hardship to the employee. The relevant observations made in
paragraph 18 of the judgment are reproduced below:-
"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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:04:07 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33350
5 WP-47786-2025

(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."

7. The aforesaid principle has subsequently been reiterated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and Others, Civil
Appeal No.7115 of 2010, decided on 02.05.2022, wherein it has been held that in
the absence of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the employee,
recovery of excess payment, particularly after a considerable lapse of time, would
not be permissible when the same would result in undue hardship.
8. This Court also finds it appropriate to refer to the judgment passed by the Full
Bench of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Jagdish Prasad
Dubey, reported in (2024) 2 MPLJ 198. The Full Bench, while considering the
question of recovery of excess payment under the M.P. Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1976, has held that recovery under Rules 65 and 66 of the Rules of 1976
can be made only after following the procedure prescribed under Chapter VIII of
the Rules. The Full Bench has further held that the question of hardship and the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) are
also required to be considered.
9. Apart from the aforesaid judgments, this Court finds that the controversy
involved in the present petition is substantially covered by the decision of this
Court in Smt. Renu Singh Hindoliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, W.P.
No.34817 of 2025, decided on 04.08.2026, wherein this Court, after considering
the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra),
Thomas Daniel (supra) and the Full Bench decision in Jagdish Prasad Dubey
(supra), has held that recovery of alleged excess payment from the widow of a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:04:07 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33350
6 WP-47786-2025
deceased Government employee cannot be sustained in law in the absence of any

fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the employee.
10. In the present case, it is not disputed that the petitioner's husband was serving
as a Constable in the Police Department and died on 31.01.2022. The respondents
have initiated the recovery proceedings and passed the impugned orders after his
death. The amount has not only been recovered from the service dues of the
deceased employee but the petitioner, who is his widow, has also been compelled
to deposit the remaining amount.
11. This Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents cannot shift the
liability of alleged excess payment upon the widow of the deceased employee. The
petitioner was neither the employee who received the alleged excess payment nor
is there any material placed on record to establish that she had played any role in
securing such payment by fraud or misrepresentation. The fact that the deceased
employee was allegedly absent from duty may give rise to a departmental issue
regarding treatment of the period of absence; however, the same, by itself, cannot
authorise the respondents to recover the alleged amount from his widow in
violation of the aforesaid circular and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
12. It is also relevant to observe that the petitioner's husband died during the
pendency of the departmental proceedings. The respondents have proceeded to
conclude the inquiry after his death and have thereafter fastened the financial
liability upon the petitioner. Even otherwise, the alleged absence from duty cannot
be treated as a ground to dispense with the legal safeguards governing recovery
from the legal representatives of a deceased Government employee.
13. Thus, keeping in view the fact that the employee has died, the nature of the
employment, the absence of any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation on the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:04:07 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33350
7 WP-47786-2025
part of the deceased employee or his widow, and particularly Clause 6 of the

Circular dated 31.05.2011, this Court finds that the recovery made from the
service dues of the deceased employee and from the petitioner is not sustainable in
the eyes of law.
14. Consequently, the impugned recovery orders dated 15.03.2022 and
18.07.2022 (Annexures P/5 and P/8) are hereby quashed. The respondents are
directed to refund the amount recovered from the service dues of the deceased
employee as well as the amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the
aforesaid recovery proceedings, subject to verification of the actual amount
recovered/deposited and ensuring that there is no double payment.
15. The respondents are further directed to refund the aforesaid amount along with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the respective dates of recovery/deposit,
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order. In case the aforesaid amount is not refunded within the stipulated period,
the respondents shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum till its
actual payment.
16. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and disposed of. No order as to costs.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Ahmad

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:04:07 PM