ORDER : Seeking exception to an order dated 08.01.2016 passed by writ court in W.P. No. 13699/2010, this appeal has been filed under Section 2-1 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. 2. Petitioner’s husband Late Sukhram Yadav was working in the Water Resources Department and after his retirement, when a recovery of Rs. 5,52,439/- was being effected from his General Provident Fund account, the writ petition was filed and it was stated in the writ petition that the recovery from the pensionary benefit is contrary to law, such a recovery is not permissible and seeking interference the writ petition was filed. The learned writ court considered the matter on merit and found that while the petitioner’s husband was in service between the period 1982 to 1992 various advances were withdrawn by him from his Provident Fund Account and now recovery is for the amount which was withdrawn by the petitioner’s late husband while in service. It was found by the learned writ court that amount recovered from the pensionary benefits is only for regularising the Provident Fund Account and for balancing the debt. A detailed tabular statement has been brought on record indicating the dates and months on which withdrawal was made and on this basis the recovery is found to be proper by the learned writ court. Now in this appeal, it is indicated that in the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) 2015(1) MPHT 130(SC) the recovery now from the pensionary benefit is unsustainable. 3. We have gone through the records and we find that in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) the law laid down by the Supreme Court pertains to recovery from certain class of employees on account of wrong pay-fixation or excess payment being granted by the department erroneously or due to mistake and debars the department from effecting recovery from the pensionary benefit or salary of employee. The said principle of law will not apply in the case of recovery from the provident fund dues of an employee. Provident fund contributions are maintained as per statutory rule and, if advances are withdrawn from provident fund as per rules, the recovery of loan or advance given is permissible. The said principle of law will not apply in the case of recovery from the provident fund dues of an employee. Provident fund contributions are maintained as per statutory rule and, if advances are withdrawn from provident fund as per rules, the recovery of loan or advance given is permissible. In the present case, as recovery is made in accordance to rules governing the provident fund scheme, the principle laid down in the case is Rafiq Masih (supra) will not apply and as recovery is found by the learned writ court to be based on statement of account furnished by the Officers of Accountant General, we see no error warranting reconsideration. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.