Recovery from retired employees is impermissible and third-party litigation does not justify withholding pensionary benefits.

The Petitioner, an Under Secretary in the Board of Revenue, retired on 30.11.2014

Although he was promoted in 2007 (effective from 2004), a third party filed W.P. No. 6149/2014 challenging said promotion

Citing the pendency of this litigation, the Respondents issued an order on 09.02.2015 sanctioning only 75% of the Petitioner’s pension

Subsequently, on 08.12.2015, the Respondents re-fixed the Petitioner’s pay and ordered a recovery of ₹11,54,380/-, adjusting it against 90% of his gratuity and leave encashment

The Petitioner challenged these orders, arguing that recovery after retirement is impermissible and that the third-party writ petition did not qualify as "judicial proceedings" under the Pension Rules

The Court primarily applied the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, specifically Rules 9 and 64, which restrict the withholding of pensionary benefits to cases where departmental or judicial proceedings are pending

It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334, which prohibits recovery from retired employees or when excess payment was made over five years prior to the recovery order

The Court followed the Full Bench decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jagdish Prasad Dubey (2024) 2 M.P.L.J. 198, which held that undertakings given at the stage of retirement are often "forced" and unenforceable unless proven to be voluntary

The Court observed that the Petitioner had retired on 30.11.2014, making the subsequent recovery orders in 2015 contrary to the protections established in Rafiq Masih

The Court held that a writ petition filed by a third party does not fall within the ambit of "judicial proceedings" as defined under the Pension Rules; therefore, the Respondents had no authority to withhold 25% of the pension

Regarding the recovery, the Court noted that the Respondents failed to establish that the Petitioner had given a voluntary undertaking at the time of the original pay fixation

Following Jagdish Prasad Dubey, the Court concluded that the undertaking obtained at the time of retirement was "forced" and legally unenforceable

Since the third-party litigation was also dismissed in 2025, there remained no legal basis to withhold benefits

It held that recovery from a retired official without a voluntary undertaking is unsustainable and that third-party litigation does not permit withholding of retiral dues

The Respondents were directed to release the full pension, gratuity, and leave encashment and refund the recovered amount with 6% interest per annum within three months

Failure to comply within the stipulated period would attract an increased interest rate of 12% per annum