Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mithlesh Neema vs State Of M.P on 26 August, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23667
1 WP-35880-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 26th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 35880 of 2024
MITHLESH NEEMA
Versus
STATE OF M.P AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Jamindar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rajwardhan Gawde, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the order Annexure P/5, where the
recovery is being done on account of non-passing of Hindi Typing/Computer
Training examination.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the issue involved in the
present case has been decided in identical petition WP No.11680/2019
(Smt.Saroj Bhatnagar Vs. State of MP and Ors) decided on 23.04.2024.
Learned counsel for the respondent/state was directed to examine
whether the present case is covered by the said judgment or not.
After examining the said order, counsel for the respondent/state could
not distinguish the present case from the said case.
That the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade III in
the respondent department on 25/09/2008 that after serving considerable
service petitioner was promoted on the post of Asst. Grade II. After
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23667
2 WP-35880-2024
promotion the yearly increment was not paid to the petitioner on the ground
of objection regarding not passing the Hindi typing examination and due to
that objection the yearly increments is not being paid to the petitioner though
petitioner has already passed the said examination prior to her appointment
on 31/07/88 but the same has not been considered though the certificates
with respect to passing of the Hindi typing/computer training had already
been produced by the petitioner to the respondent No.3 but the same has not
been considered and passed the order on 09/09/22 saying that you have not
produced the certificate of computer training examination. In this regard
petitioner has submitted a representation on 08/12/22 submitted that the
condition no.2 of appointment order whereby the order of M.P Govt.
24/11/84 the person will be exempted on attaining the age of 45 years the
condition of Govt. order Dt. 24/11/84 but that has not been /considered and
passed the impugned order of recovery.
The office of respondent no.4 by making fixation of the petitioner,
passed the recovery order whereby the recovery to the tune of
Rs.1,18,503(principal sum) + 41,628(interest) was made against the
petitioner despite the fact that petitioner is entitled for exemption on attaining
the age of 40 years as per circular Dt. 01/04/2003, however petitioner has
already possessed the said qualification at the time of entry in the service. It
is pertinent to mention that state of M.P through its GAD department issued
a circular on 01/04/2003 whereby the condition of passing Hindi typing
examination has been relaxed in the case of attaining the age of 45 years of
age. In this connection petitioner has made a representation for sanction
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23667
3 WP-35880-2024
yearly increment to the respondent No.3 on 22/04/22 but nothing has been
done.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
has never been at fault as regards the matter of her pay fixation. She never
made any misrepresentation to the respondents and had no role to play in the
matter of fixation of her pay. The same was to be done by the respondents
themselves. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a Class-III employee
and has been paid the salary on and from 01.10.2008 upto July, 2017
whereas the impugned order of recovery has been passed in the year 2018
which is bad in law.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that
as per her appointment order, the petitioner was required to pass Hindi typing
examination and also DCA/PGDCA. She did not pass those examinations
hence was not at all entitled for grant of regular annual increments which
were wrongly extended to her and have rightly been ordered to be recovered.
Since the extension of benefit of regular increments to the petitioner was
itself illegal the same has rightly been cancelled by the respondents and
recovery of excess amount on that count is also justified.
As a consequence, the impugned orders Annexure P/5 passed by
respondents No.3 cannot be permitted to stand and are hereby quashed. The
amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner, be refunded to her along with
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of recovery till date of actual
payment. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of three
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23667
4 WP-35880-2024
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is however,
made clear that the pay fixation of the petitioner is hereby maintained.
The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
