[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Brij Lal Sisodiya on 19 December, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33630
1 WA-3636-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 19th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 3636 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
BRIJ LAL SISODIYA
Appearance:
Shri Ravindra Dixit, Government Advocate for appellants/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
Heard on I.A. No.15577/2025 , an application for condonation of
delay.
2. According to counsel for appellants, as referred in different
paragraphs of application, delay of 47 days have been caused in filing the
appeal. He relied upon the judgments of Apex Court in the case of State
(NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ahmed Jaan reported in (2008) 14 SCC 582 and State of
Karnataka Vs. Y. Moideen Kunhi reported in (2009) 13 SCC 192 and seeks
condonation of delay.
3. Considering the submissions and looking to the reasons assigned
into the application in Paragraphs 2 to 4, it appears that sufficiency of cause
is made out for condonation of delay, therefore, in the interest of justice, I.A.
No.15577/2025 is allowed and delay of 47 days in fling the appeal is hereby
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33630
2 WA-3636-2025
condoned. Appeal is directed to be heard on merits.
4. Heard on admission.
5. The present appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is
preferred by the appellants/State being crestfallen by the order dated
01.08.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.19762/2020,
whereby writ petition filed by respondent employee has been allowed.
6. It is the submission of learned counsel for appellants that matter
pertains to recovery initiated against respondent employee (petitioner before
Writ Court) on the basis of wrong fixation of pay scale. However, learned
Writ Court decided the writ petition and allowed in view of the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq
Masih (White Washer) and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 .
7. After considering the rival submissions and going through the
impugned order, it appears that learned Writ Court has rightly considered the
issue in question. Respondent Brij Lal Sisodiya is a Class - IV employee
(Driver) and wrong fixation of pay was carried out during his service tenure.
Later on, he retired on 31.12.2017. After his retirement, an undertaking was
taken for preparation of pension papers and issuance of PPO, therefore,
undertaking is subsequent to pay fixation as well subsequent to retirement,
therefore, it is not a proper undertaking taken in the light of the judgment
passed in the case of State of M.P. and others Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey
reported in 2024 (II) MPLJ 198 .
8. Not only this, respondent is a Class-IV employee and recovery is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33630
3 WA-3636-2025
initiated after his retirement, therefore, in the light of judgment of Apex
Court passed in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra), no case for interference is
made out. Learned Writ Court has rightly considered the factual contours and
legal questions involved into it.
9. However, it appears that interest awarded over the recovered
amount is 9% per annum. In the given facts and circumstances, appropriate
interest awarded would be 6% per annum, therefore, interest be awarded at
the rate of 6% per annum.
10. With this modification, impugned order is hereby affirmed and the
Writ Appeal stands dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Abhi
