Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kadwa Arse vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 November, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32195
1 WP-1319-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 6th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1319 of 2025
KADWA ARSE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Kumar Patwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anirudha Malpani - GA for State.
ORDER
The petitioner, a government servant, has filed the present Writ
Petition, challenging the recovery and order dated 26.9.2023 by which
the recovery of Rs.269220/- has been directed against the petitioner.
The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Lower
Division Teacher on 10.1.1984 and thereafter by order dated
20.2.2001 on completion of 12 years of service, the benefit of 1st higher
pay scale in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2640 (revised to Rs.5000-8000)
was allowed and that thereafter by order dated 13.6.2008, the petitioner
has been promoted on the post of Upper Division Teacher, in the pay
scale i.e. Rs 1400-2640 (Revised Rs. 5000-8000) and thereafter by the
order dated 07-01-2013 promoted on the post of Head Master(M.S.), and
accordingly the pay of the Petitioner was fixed without granting the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32195
2 WP-1319-2025
benefit of 2 advance increments on account of promotion on the higher
posts as per the provision of the Fundamental Rules (F.R. 22-D).
The respondents have stated that the impugned order has been
passed since the Office of the Jt. Director, Treasury and Pension has
raised an objection that the petitioner was already been extended the
benefit of a higher pay scale which is the pay scale accruing from the
proposed promotion; therefore, he was not entitled to the benefit of FR
22-D.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
controversy involved in the present case is already covered by the
Division Bench judgment in the matter of State of MP and others Vs.
Dayaram Patidar in WP No.1104/2001 dated 4th October, 2002 and the
judgment dated 6/5/2011 in WP(S) No.5076/2010(S) in the matter of
Devisingh Vs. State of MP and others . He has further placed reliance on
a judgment passed by co-ordinate bench in the case of Supchand
Chouhan Vs. State of MP & Ors. WP No.18895/2017.
Counsel for respondents opposed the claim of the petitioner;
however could not point out that the matter is distinguishable from the
aforesaid judgments.
I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the
record.
The sole ground on which the recovery order has been passed is
that the petitioner was promoted and on the promoted post, the same
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32195
3 WP-1319-2025
scale was applicable, therefore, the benefit of FR 22-D cannot be
granted.
The aforesaid issue has already been decided by the Division
Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Dayaram Patidar (supra)
by holding that:
"14. On merits also this petition must fall. An employee on
promotion from a lower post to higher post is entitled to get
his pay fixed in the pay scale of higher post as per FR.22- D.
This rule gives him weightage of a few increments. It is true,
that the respondent employee was already getting the pay
scale of his new post even before promotion. But that would
not disentitle him to the benefit under FR.22D. This rule
speaks of promotion from lower post to higher post not from
one scale to another. Scale of pay is irrelevant in the matter of
application of FR.22-D, which confers some financial benefit
to the employee on promotion which is logical also. So even
when the respondent was getting same salary while working
on lower post, the benefit of FR.22-D to which he is otherwise
entitled on promotion, cannot be denied to him.
15. Petitioners' contention that Respondent's pay fixation has
been done under FR.22(a) (ii) which was financially more
beneficial to him, is, not acceptable to this Court. If factually
that is the position then petitioners are not going to be put to
any financial loss, even, if, they are required to give benefit of
FR.22-D to the Respondent. Thus, this ground is negatived on
petitioners' own admission made before the Tribunal in their
reply. It has already been held by a Bench of this Court that
circular of the Finance Department shall not be binding on the
Respondent, as Respondent has to be given benefit from the
date he assumes charge on the promoted post and financial
sanction has no role to play in it."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32195
4 WP-1319-2025
It is also noticed that by the same order dated 30/12/2002 another
LDT namely Devisingh was promoted in the pay scale of 5000-8000 as
UDT along with the petitioner and in the case of Devisingh (supra) also
the similar order of recovery dated 20th March, 2010 on the same
ground was passed and the WP No.5076/2010(S) filed by Devisingh
(supra)has been allowed by this Court by holding that:-
"The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ
petition being aggrieved by the order dt. 20/3/10 by which the
respondents have revised the pay fixation of the petitioner and
the earlier benefit of pay fixation by applying FR 22D have
been withdrawn. The contention of the petitioner is that he
was promoted from the post of LDT to UDT in the same pay
scale and the benefit of FR 22D was conferred upon him on
account of his promotion vide order dt.31/12/02. The
contention of the petitioner is that the benefit of FR 22 D was
rightly conferred upon him by the respondents keeping in
view the judgment delivered by this court in the case of State
of MP Vs. Dayaram Patidar and one another WP
No.1104/2001 dt.4/10/02 . This Court has carefully gone
through the aforesaid judgment and the same reveals that in
case of promotion from LDT to UDT the benefit of FR22D
has to be extended as the post of UDT involves higher
responsibility and higher duties and therefore the respondents
were justified in initially granting the benefit of FR22D to the
petitioner and the same has erroneously been withdrawn by
the impugned order dt.20/3/10 hence the same deserves to be
quashed in the light of the judgment delivered in the case of
Dayaram (supra). This Court has carefully gone through the
judgment delivered in the case of Dayaram Patidar(supra) and
is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is certainly
entitled for grant of benefit under FR 22 D he was promoted
to a post carrying higher responsibilities.
Resultantly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order
dt.20/3/10 is hereby quashed. Any amount recovered by the
respondents be refunded to the petitioner within a period of 90
days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order
and the petitioner shall certainly be entitled for all benefits by
virtue of pay fixation by the respondents in the year 2002 by
granting him the benefit of FR 22D. This petition is allowed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32195
5 WP-1319-2025
No order as to costs."
Since the issue involved in the present matter is squarely covered
by the aforesaid order of this Court, therefore, the Writ Petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated 26.9.2023 is quashed. Any amount
recovered from the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned order be
refunded to him within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of
this order. The petitioner will be entitled to all the benefits of the pay
fixation accordingly.
The petition is allowed. No costs.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
VM
