Kaviraj Jaishwal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68994
1 WP-17445-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
th
ON THE 8 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 17445 of 2016
KAVIRAJ JAISHWAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Ajeet Kumar Singh - Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Jubin Prasad - Panel Lawyer for State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

"7.1 That, the Hon'ble Court kindly may be kind enough to
quash the order dated 23/09/16 (Ann-P/8)and 24/09/2016 (Ann-
P/9)and may be directed to the respondents to be granted the time
pay scale as per order dated 26/09/2011 with 15% interest to the
petitioner and revised his pension, in the interest of justice.
7.2 That, the Hon'ble court kindly may be kind enough to
call for records of this concerning petition.
7.3 That, any other relief, order or direction deem fit and
proper in the fact and circumstances of the case may also granted
together with the cost of the petition."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 08-09-2026
19:19:34

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68994
2 WP-17445-2016


2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving in the
Agriculture Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh and ultimately
retired from the post of Agriculture Development Officer (Cadre-III) on
31.10.2005, upon attaining the age of superannuation. His pension was
initially fixed on the basis of his last pay drawn at Rs.6,250/-, and PPO dated
08.11.2006 was issued accordingly. Subsequently, the petitioner was
extended the benefit of time-scale/Kramonnati with effect from 01.03.1984
vide order dated 28.08.2011, whereby his pay was fixed in the pay scale of
Rs.4500-125-7000. Thereafter, pursuant to the recommendations of the Fifth
Pay Commission, his pay was revised and fixed at Rs.5200 + Rs.264 P.P.
with effect from 01.06.1998. However, the consequential monetary and
pensionary benefits arising therefrom were not extended to him. The
petitioner, therefore, submitted a representation dated 07.09.2015 before the
competent authority seeking extension of the aforesaid benefits. As no
decision was taken on the said representation, the petitioner approached this
Court by filing W.P. No.16887/2015, which was disposed of vide order dated
28.10.2015, directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's
representation within a period of three months. Pursuant thereto, instead of
extending the benefits claimed by the petitioner, respondent No.5, vide order
dated 23.09.2016, cancelled the earlier pay fixation of Rs.5200 + Rs.264 P.P.
and substituted the same with Rs.5200 + Rs.115 P.P. Consequentially, vide
order dated 24.09.2016, recovery of the alleged excess payment was directed
from the pension of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 08-09-2026
19:19:34

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68994
3 WP-17445-2016
23.09.2016 and 24.09.2016, the petitioner has approached this Court by way

of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
primarily contending that the earlier sanctioned pay fixation was altered and
recovery of the alleged excess amount was ordered without affording him an
opportunity of hearing and after his retirement. The petitioner, therefore,
seeks quashing of the impugned orders, restoration of the earlier pay
fixation, consequential revision of his pension and payment of the admissible
arrears.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
impugned recovery is bad in law and arbitrary. It is submitted that the
recovery order was passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner. It is submitted that such recovery is barred by the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others
v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 . Hence, the
impugned order deserves to be set-aside.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned
orders have been passed by the competent authority after due examination of
the petitioner’s service record and the applicable rules. It is contended that
the earlier pay fixation was erroneous and resulted in excess payment to the
petitioner; hence, the competent authority was justified in rectifying the same
and fixing his pay at the level legally admissible to him. It is further
submitted that an erroneous fixation cannot confer any vested right upon the
petitioner contrary to the applicable rules and that the consequential recovery
was merely a result of correction of the erroneous fixation. It is, therefore,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 08-09-2026
19:19:34

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68994
4 WP-17445-2016
submitted that the impugned orders suffer from no illegality or jurisdictional

error and that the petitioner has failed to establish any legal right to the pay
fixation of Rs.5200 + Rs.264 P.P. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be
dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It is a case where recovery has been done against the petitioner after
retirement. Such controversy has already been decided by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) ,
(2015) 4 SCC 334; wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph 18
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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise
the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers,
would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class
IV service (or Group C and Group D service).
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who
are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from the 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 . In the present case, the petitioner stood retired on
31.10.2005, whereas the impugned recovery was made on 23.09.2016 and
24.09.2016, i.e. after his retirement. Thus, the case of the petitioner falls
within the category (ii) carved out by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rafiq Masih
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 08-09-2026
19:19:34

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68994
5 WP-17445-2016
(Supra), and thus, the impugned recovery cannot be sustained in the eye of

law.
8. Accordingly, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra), the present writ petition is allowed.
The impugned recovery directed against the petitioner vide orders dated
23.09.2016 and 24.09.2016 (Annexure P/8 and P/9) could not pass judicial
scrutiny of this Court and are hereby quashed.
9. The respondents are directed to refund the amount, if any, already
recovered from the petitioner within a period of three months from the date
of production of a certified copy of this order. If the amount is not paid
within the said period, then it shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
10. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
julie

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 08-09-2026
19:19:34