Delayed recovery of excess pay from Class III employees is barred under Rafiq Masih protections.

The State appealed from an order of the Writ Court concerning the respondents.

The Division Bench recorded that the controversy was squarely covered by its earlier decision dated 12 May 2026 in The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Raghu Raj Singh Parihar, Writ Appeal No. 661 of 2026, and directed that decision to apply mutatis mutandis. The Court also noted that the present appeal was delayed by 419 days.

Whether the controversy in the present appeal was governed by the Division Bench’s decision in Raghu Raj Singh Parihar.

Whether the appeal, delayed by 419 days, should be dismissed.

The Court applied its decision in The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Raghu Raj Singh Parihar, Writ Appeal No. 661 of 2026, which relied on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih for the principle that recovery of excess payments is impermissible in specified circumstances, including recovery from Class III/IV employees, retired employees or employees due to retire within one year, and recovery relating to payments made more than five years before the recovery order.

It also relied on the Full Bench decision in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jagdish Prasad Singh, which addressed recovery based on undertakings and required compliance with the limits recognised in Rafiq Masih. The State’s reliance on High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Jagdev Singh was considered in the earlier appeal.

The Division Bench did not separately reconsider the underlying pay or recovery dispute. It held that the controversy was squarely covered by Raghu Raj Singh Parihar and therefore adopted that decision’s reasoning and result for this case.

The Court additionally recorded that the appeal was barred by 419 days, but did not set out a separate analysis of the delay.

The Court made no order as to costs.