The state had failed to establish that the alleged excess payment resulted from any fault on the part of the petitioner or her deceased husband, the court noted. (AI-generated image)The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed a Rs 1.08 lakh recovery order issued against the widow of a deceased government employee, holding that excess salary payments allegedly made without fraud or misrepresentation on the employee’s part could not be recovered from her. The court also noted that no hearing was given before the recovery.Justice Deepak Khot was dealing with a plea of a widow who challenged the Madhya Pradesh government’s March 30, 2016 order seeking recovery of Rs 1.08 lakh allegedly paid in excess to her deceased husband during his service.“There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner had obtained the said benefit by practising fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of any material fact. The respondents, after having extended the benefit, withdrew the same and ordered recovery of the alleged excess amount without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,” the court said on August 17.The order noted that when the facts of the present case have been tested on the anvil of the principle laid down by this court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey, it is found that the undertaking/indemnity bond cannot be used against the petitioner for recovery of the amount, which was paid years before.Widow challenges posthumous recoveryThe case was filed by a woman before the high court challenging an order dated March 30, 2016, directing recovery of Rs 1.08 lakh from her towards alleged excess salary made to her deceased husband, who had served as an accountant. Justice Deepak Khot found that the recovery order was passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.The woman’s husband had been appointed on January 21, 1982 and died on August 31, 2015. During his service, he was granted pay-scale benefits that had been approved by the competent authorities. After his death, however, the state claimed that his pay had been incorrectly fixed from April 1, 2006, although his option form showed that the benefit should have been granted from July 1, 2006.Also Read | Brothers ‘refuse’ care for kidney-donor mother, court grants job to married sisterThe state consequently sought recovery of the alleged excess amount. The woman argued that the recovery was illegal because the benefit had been granted by the authorities themselves, there was no fraud or misrepresentation on her or her husband’s part, and no show-cause notice or hearing had been given before ordering recovery.Story continues below this adAppearing for the woman, advocate Aniruddha Prasad Pandey submitted that even assuming that the petitioner was not entitled to the said benefit, the recovery of the amount already paid is impermissible in law, particularly when there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner.Not petitioner’s fault: OrderThe high court observed that the deceased employee had been granted the Kramonnati/time-scale benefit by the authorities themselves and that there was no material showing of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts on his part.The court noted that the man was a Class-III employee and that the state had failed to establish that the alleged excess salary payment resulted from any fault on the part of the petitioner or her deceased husband. Therefore, the case fell within the exceptions recognised by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih, where recovery of excess payments is impermissible.Also Read | NEET-UG: Central govt staff’s children to get ‘local’ status for MBBS admissions, says courtThe court also found that the recovery order was passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is a Class-III employee. The respondents have failed to demonstrate that the excess salary, if any, was attributable to any fault on the part of the petitioner,” it said.Jagriti Rai works with The Indian Express (Digital), where she writes from the vital intersection of law, gender, and society. Working on a dedicated legal desk, she focuses on translating complex legal frameworks into relatable narratives, exploring how the judiciary and legislative shifts empower and shape the consciousness of citizens in their daily lives. Expertise Socio-Legal Specialization: Jagriti brings a critical, human-centric perspective to modern social debates. Her work focuses on how legal developments impact gender rights, marginalized communities, and individual liberties. Diverse Editorial Background: With over 4 years of experience in digital and mainstream media, she has developed a versatile reporting style. Her previous tenures at high-traffic platforms like The Lallantop and Dainik Bhaskar provided her with deep insights into the information needs of a diverse Indian audience. Academic Foundations: Post-Graduate in Journalism from the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), India’s premier media training institute. Master of Arts in Ancient History from Banaras Hindu University (BHU), providing her with the historical and cultural context necessary to analyze long-standing social structures and legal evolutions. ... Read More