Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Kumar Saraf vs Home Department on 18 August, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1 WP-14027-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 18th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 12918 of 2018
ASHOK SINGH CHANDEL
Versus
HOME DEPARTMENT (POLICE) AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Phadke, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 12924 of 2018
BABULAL VERMA
Versus
HOME DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Phadke, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
WRIT PETITION No. 12927 of 2018
MANGILAL CHOUHAN
Versus
HOME DEPARTMENT (POLICE) AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Phadke, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 18-08-2025
17:39:54
2 WP-14027-2018
WRIT PETITION No. 12930 of 2018
RAMPRAKASH
Versus
HOME DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Phadke, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
WRIT PETITION No. 14027 of 2018
ANIL KUMAR SARAF
Versus
HOME DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Gaurav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
WRIT PETITION No. 15455 of 2018
SATYANARAYAN KASHYAP
Versus
HOME DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Phadke, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
ORDER
Regard being had to the similitude of the facts, the writ petitions are
being disposed of by this common order.
In these petitions, the petitioners who are working on the post of
Assistant Sub-Inspector Radio are challenging the order of recovery on
3 WP-14027-2018
account of wrong fixation of pay.
He argued that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment passed
in the case of Gangaram Gautam VS. State of MP and Ors passed in WP
No.16054/2018 decided on 14.07.2018.
It is further argued that t he respondents passed the impugned order of
recovery mainly on the ground that the petitioner was wrongly given the pay
scale as he has already got the promotion and, therefore, in view of the
circular dated 13/11/2009, Annexure R-1 , the petitioner was not entitled for
first time bound pay scale in his salary.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid circular has
already been quashed by this Court in the case of Pratap Narayan
Vishwakarma Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2016 (4) MPLJ 491. In that case,
after considering the submissions made by the parties the writ petition was
allowed mainly on the ground that the circular dated 13/11/2009 by which
the previous circular dated 1/4/2008 was clarified, could not be applied to the
case of the petitioner as the said circular was prospective in nature. The
circular was quashed being discriminatory and violative of provisions of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The order dated 16/1/2017 was
challenged by way of intra Court appeal in Writ Appeal. The said appeal was
dismissed by order dated 13/3/2018. The relevant paras of the order passed
by the Division Bench reads as under :-
"4.After considering the submission made by the parties the
learned single judge has allowed the writ petition mainly on
the ground that the circular dated 13/11/2009, by which the
previous circular dated 1/4/2008 was clarified would not
apply to the case of the present writ petitioner as the same
4 WP-14027-2018
circular has got only prospective effect.
5.In the case of Pradeep Narayan Vishwakarma (supra) this
Court has quashed the circular dated 13/11/2009 being
violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India and the same has been held to be discriminatory and
creating a class within a class. It has not been pointed out that
the judgment passed in the case of Pradeep Narayan
Vishwakarma (supra) has been over ruled. Since the circular
dated 13/11/2009 itself has been held to be void and has been
quashed by this Court the contention of the appellants cannot
be accepted that the writ petitioner is not entitled for the
benefit of time scale pay in the light of the Clarification No.3
of circular dated 13/11/2009. We may not in agreement with
the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge but since the
relevant Clause-3 of the circular dated 13/11/2009 has
already been quashed by this Court and the said order has not
been overruled by any Court of law, therefore, we do not find
any error in the order of the learned Single Judge quashing
the order dated 11/8/2015 denying the time scale pay to the
writ petitioner and directing for the payment of the said time
scale pay."
Relying on the aforesaid judgment, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court
at Jabalpur in W.P. No.7091/2020 (Chiran Sumer (supra) ) and other
connected batch of petitions while allowing the said petitions quashed the
impugned order and directed to make fixation of salary of the petitioner w.e.f
1/4/2006 and further directed to refund the amount recovered from the
petitioner.
Counsel for the State supports the order of recovery and submits that
the order relied by the petitioner was only in respect of petitioners and it was
not applicable to all the employees.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the case of the
5 WP-14027-2018
petitioner is squarely covered by the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in W.P. No.7091/2020 (Chiran Sumer (supra)) and other
connected petitions. The respondents relied on the circular dated 13/11/2009
which has been annexed as Annexure R-1 . The said circular has already been
quashed by this Court in the case of Pratap Narayan Vishwakarma (supra)
which has been affirmed by the Division Bench. The order passed by the
Division Bench has been referred by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P.7091/2020.
In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed. The impugned
orders of recovery are quashed. The respondents are directed to make
fixation of salary of the petitioner as per order dated 5/5/2012 w.e.f
1/4/2006. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within period of 3
months from the date of communication of the order and the petitioner shall
be granted consequential benefits. The amount has not been recovered,
therefore, no order of return of the amount is being passed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
