Madhya Pradesh High Court
Awadhesh Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 June, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12260
1 WA-1684-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 19th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 1684 of 2025
AWADHESH KUMAR SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devesh Sharma - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Vivek Khedkar (Senior Advocate)- AAG with Shri Rishabh Singh- Advocate
for respondents/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
The present writ appeal preferred under Section 2(1) of the Madhya
Pradesh Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005
by appellant against impugned order dated 28.02.2025 passed in W.P. No.
7363/2021, whereby petition preferred by appellant (petitioner therein) got
dismissed.
2. It is the submission of learned counsel for appellant that this case is
covered by the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors.
vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) 2015 7 SCC 334 . It is further submitted that
payment was made to him and later on, tried to be recovered. Same is
arbitrary and illegal.
3. Learned counsel for respondents opposed the prayer and supported
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12260
2 WA-1684-2025
the impugned order. According to respondents, it appears from the service
book of appellant that appellant was removed from services and it was held
that during the period of suspension, i.e., 28.03.1984 to 30.06.1984, appellant
was not entitled for any emoluments except suspension allowance.
Thereafter, it appears that on appeal filed by appellant, order of removal
from service was set aside and punishment of reduction of pay scale by two
increments for a period of one year was imposed and period of absence was
treated as period of paid leave. Therefore, it was not a case where recovery
was made due to excess payment given on wrong fixation of pay. It was a
totally different case. Facts suggest that appellant got punishment and in
pursuance thereof, he was denied increments. However, those increments
were erroneously given, therefore, recovery was made.
4. Learned counsel for respondents further informs this Court that it
was an error on the part of Officer-In-Charge (OIC) of the case not to
disclose all these facts in written. Appropriate action shall be ensured against
OIC.
5. Heard.
6. This is a case where appellant is taking exception to the recovery
made by the respondents on the ground that excess payment/increments
given earlier cannot be recovered. However, the argument is misplaced.
Appellant was not getting the benefit of increments on the basis of wrong
fixation of pay. He tried to get the benefit whereas statutorily, he was not
entitled because he was punished for his folly and reduction of pay scale by
two increments for a period of one year was imposed. Therefore, petition was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12260
3 WA-1684-2025
misconceived.
7. Learned Writ court rightly considered the fact situation and in fact,
took pains to go through the service book of the appellant, so as to reach to
the truth. Therefore, the order under challenge is just and proper and need no
interference. Thus, appeal stands dismissed with cost o f Rs.5,000/- (Rupees
Five Thousands) in favour of Juvenile Justice Fund having Saving Bank
Account No.60411029562 of Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Govindpura,
Bhopal, IFSC Code MAHB0001988 (a statutory fund created for the welfare
of juveniles) within one month.
8. So far as depreciation of conduct of OIC is concerned, learned
counsel for respondents has already given undertaking that appropriate action
shall be ensured against OIC, therefore, no further order is required to be
passed and it is expected that OIC shall be dealt with suitably for the
negligence shown in contesting the case.
9. Matter be placed under the caption " Direction" in the month of
September, 2025 for the action report taken against the OIC for such
conduct.
Appeal stands dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
*VJ*
