Madhya Pradesh High Court
Salil Dhagat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 May, 2026
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38658
1 WA-3094-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 13th OF MAY, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 3094 of 2025
SALIL DHAGAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anshul Tiwari - Advocate for appellant.
Smt. Janhavi Pandit, Additional Advocate General for the State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 12451 of 2024 whereby the petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant has been partly allowed.
2. The case of the appellant/writ petitioner is that after 17 months from the retirement of the petitioner from service, Respondent No. 5 issued the recovery order dated 29.01.2024 after obtaining an affidavit dated 12.01.2024 from the petitioner in the form of consent. Vide the recovery order dated 29.01.2024, recovery of an alleged excess amount of Rs. 16,88,958/- along with interest was directed to be affected from the petitioner as the petitioner stood retired on 31.07.2022 and the recovery has been ordered against him after his retirement on 29.01.2024 therefore, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 15-05-2026 12:06:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38658 2 WA-3094-2025 recovery after retirement, is unsustainable.
3. It is argued that the petitioner had no role in the alleged erroneous payment and it was not based on any suppression or fraud on the part of the petitioner. The appellant/writ petitioner challenged by the same by way of filing the aforesaid writ petition whereby the writ court upholding the recovery from 01.08.2017 to 31.07.2022 and set aside the recovery from 01.04.2006 till 31.07.2017, hence, this appeal raising the following grounds.
4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner that the Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the dispute pertains to recovery after retirement, which is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih and Others, Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala & Ors., and Jogeshwar Sahoo & Ors. vs. The District Judge, Cuttack & Ors., as well as the Larger Bench judgment of this Hon'ble Court in State of M.P. & Ors. vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey. The impugned order wrongly upheld recovery for the period of five years preceding the appellant's superannuation, despite there being no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the appellant in grant of the Second Time Scale of Pay.
5. It is further submitted that the respondents relied upon a DPC proceedings which were never communicated to the appellant, nor was any opportunity of hearing granted. No adverse ACRs were ever supplied to the appellant, rendering the action arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.
6. It is also stated that further, the recovery order dated 29.01.2024 Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 15-05-2026 12:06:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38658 3 WA-3094-2025 was issued after 17 months of retirement and includes unlawful calculation of interest even beyond the date of retirement. The recovery and interest calculations are therefore illegal and liable to be quashed, with consequential refund along with interest.
7. Per contra, the prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the State on the ground that the appellant/ writ petitioner was erroneously granted the benefit of second financial upgradation with effect from 01.04.2006. The said irregularity was detected when the writ petitioner's pension papers were processed near the time of his retirement. It was found that the financial upgradation had been granted under the order of the Director, Farmer Welfare (Respondent No. 3), who was not the competent authority. Consequently, the State Government decided to review the financial upgradation granted to the petitioner. Upon review by the Selection Committee convened on 26.08.2021, it was found that the benefit of financial upgradation had been erroneously granted to the petitioner, as he did not fulfil the requisite benchmark criteria at the time when the said financial upgradation was granted in the year 2006.
8. Learned counsel for appellant relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts rendered in the cases of Jagdish Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others reported as 2024 INSC 591, State of M.P. through Principal Secretary School Education and others Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey in W.A. No. 815 of 2017 and other connected writ appeals order dated 06.03.2024, Jogeshwar Sahoo and others Vs. The District Judge, Cuttack and others, reported as 2025 INSC 449, State of Punjab and others Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 15-05-2026 12:06:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38658 4 WA-3094-2025 Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others (2015) 4 SCC 334, Lal Bahadur Verma Vs. State of MP and others, Neutral citation No. 2026:MPHC- JBP:16520 to contend that recovery of excess payment from a retired employee is impermissible when the overpayment occurred due to no fault or misrepresentation on the part of the employee.
9. The writ court observed that the appellant/writ petitioner was granted financial upgradation by the Director, Farmer Welfare, Madhya Pradesh, who was a competent and senior authority of the State Government. The petitioner continued to receive the said benefit from 01.04.2006, and no objection was raised until his pension papers were processed shortly before retirement. At that stage, the State Government reviewed the matter and concluded that the petitioner did not fulfil the benchmark criteria for grant of the second financial upgradation. The writ court further noted that the appellant/writ petitioner, being a retired Class-II officer, had received the benefit for nearly 16 years without any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation on his part. Relying upon paragraph 18(iii) of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra), the writ court held that recovery from a retired employee for excess payment made beyond five years prior to the recovery order is not justified. Accordingly, the recovery for the period from 01.08.2017 to 31.07.2022, i.e., five years preceding the petitioner's retirement, was upheld, while the recovery for the period from 01.04.2006 to 31.07.2017 was set aside. The writ court also quashed the interest component and directed the respondents to recalculate the recoverable amount and refund any excess recovery within sixty days, Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 15-05-2026 12:06:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38658 5 WA-3094-2025 failing which interest at the rate of 6% per annum would be payable.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant interference in the present appeal. The learned Single Judge has appreciated the factual and legal aspects of the matter and has applied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) as well as other subsequent judgments governing recovery from retired employees.
12. It is undisputed that the appellant/writ petitioner was granted the benefit of second financial upgradation by a competent authority and continued to draw the said benefit for nearly sixteen years without any objection from the respondents. There is no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. The excess payment, if any, occurred solely due to administrative lapse on the part of the department and the recovery proceedings were initiated only after the retirement of the appellant.
13. The learned Single Judge, while granting substantial relief by setting aside the recovery pertaining to the period from 01.04.2006 to 31.07.2017 and by quashing the interest component. The limited recovery upheld for the period of five years preceding retirement is in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) case. Respondents have not challenged the order of the writ court.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 15-05-2026 12:06:19NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38658 6 WA-3094-2025
14. The substantial question for determination in the writ appeal is whether the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) is applicable to Class I and Class II officers ?
15. In 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 344, Ajabrao Rambhau Patil v. State of Maharashtra, the Coordinate Bench of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court observed that the applicability of the judgment in Rafiq Masih (supra) was based on the peculiar facts of that case and should not be construed to mean that Class I or Class II officers are entitled to protection from recovery under the said judgment. We are in full agreement with the said view and observe that the protection against recovery as laid down in Rafiq Masih (supra) is available only to Class III and Class IV employees, i.e., Group 'C' and Group 'D' employees, and not to Class I and Class II officers. Therefore, the writ court wrongly applied the principle of Rafiq Masih (supra) in the present case. However, the Coordinate Bench applied the principle in a case where a Class III employee was subsequently promoted to a Class II post and the recovery pertained to the period during which the employee served in the Class III post; in such circumstances, the protection under Rafiq Masih (supra) was held applicable even after retirement from the Class II post.
16. In view of the above, no interference with the order passed by the writ court is called for. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Both parties shall bear their own costs.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 15-05-2026 12:06:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38658 7 WA-3094-2025 (VIVEK RUSIA) (PRADEEP MITTAL) JUDGE JUDGE MSP Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 15-05-2026 12:06:19