Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Suraj Singh Parihar on 6 November, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
ON THE 6th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT APPEAL NO. 787 of 2022
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
Vs.
SURAJ SINGH PARIHAR
&
WRIT APPEAL NO. 816 of 2022
SURAJ SINGH PARIHAR
Vs.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCE:
Shri Ankur Mody - Additional Advocate General and Shri
Ravindra Dixit - Government Advocate for the appellants/State.
Shri Alok Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the
respondent/employee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
1. Regard being had to similitude of the dispute, both the writ appeals
are being heard analogously and decided by this common order. For
factual clarity, facts of Writ Appeal No.787/2022 are taken into
consideration.
2. The present writ appeal preferred under Section 2 (1) of the
Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyyaypeeth Ko
Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 by appellants/State against the order
dated 14-12-2021 passed in Writ Petition No.13467/2020, whereby
petition preferred by respondent stands disposed of with certain
directions.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent/employee placed
before this Court an order dated 23-07-2025 passed in W.A.
No.1657/2025 (The State of M.P. and Ors vs. Ramrao Bhimte) and
seeks parity. According to him, the case in hand is akin to the case
of Ramrao Bhimte (supra) which was discussed by Division Bench
of this Court (Principal Seat Jabalpur) and after discussion appeal
preferred by appellant/State got dismissed. Learned Division
Bench considered the import of judgment rendered by Apex Court
in the case of S.H. Baig and Ors. vs. State of M.P. and Ors
reported in 2018 (10) SCC 621, State of Punjab and Ors vs.
Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334
and judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Anita
Chaudhary and Ors. vs. State of M.P. (Civil Appeal
No.9927/2018), whereby case of recovery against employee got
quashed. It is further submitted that appellants/State complied the
order in respect of some of the employees vide order dated 02-04-
2025, 08-04-2025 and 15-04-2025.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that
although dispute mainly pertains to recovery from retired
employees but at the same time observation made in para 19 of the
impugned order that excess payment which was made to the
petitioner (respondent herein) was on account of some calculation
mistake by the authority but at the same time, it can also be said
that excess payment was not made to the respondent/employee on
account of any misrepresentation on his part is not correct and it
causes prejudice to the cause of appellants/State to the extent that
in fact it was not based upon any circular/notification. Ministerial
employees of police department were not entitled to get such
benefit of increment. Therefore, appellants seeks liberty to raise
this point in future if occasion warrants so.
5. Counsel for the respondent/employee opposed the contention
raised by the appellants/State and submits that the controversy
attained finality in view of the Division Bench judgment of
Principal Seat Jabalpur in the case of Ramrao Bhimte (supra). So
far as entitlement is concerned, counsel for the
respondent/employee relied upon the circular dated 13-10-1982.
Clause 24 of the said circular talks about granting of such special
duty allowance to the Police Constable (Rs.50/- per month), Police
Head Constable (Rs.60/- per month) and ASI and above (Rs.70/-
per month).
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants/State refers
Madhya Pradesh Pay Revision Rules, 1983 in which vide sub
clause (iv) of rule 7 (b), ministerial staff of Police Department was
excluded from such benefit.
7. After going through the judgment of Ramrao Bhimte (supra) as
well as the order dated 13-10-2025 passed in bunch of writ appeals
in which writ appeal No.2878/2025 (The State of M.P. & Ors. Vs.
Shrikrishna Sharma) was the lead case, this Court intends to tread
on the same path.
8. Resultantly, writ appeal preferred by the appellants/State (Writ
Appeal No.787/2022) is hereby dismissed and the order passed by
learned Writ Court is hereby affirmed. However, it is made clear
that recovery part against the respondent/employee is being
quashed while appellants/State is at liberty to consider the
entitlement if any occasion warrants so. Further the writ appeal
preferred by the employee (Writ Appeal No.816/2022) is hereby
allowed and recovery against him is hereby set aside.
9. Accordingly, both the writ appeals are decided. Copy of this order be
kept in Writ Appeal No.816/2022.
(ANAND PATHAK) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
Anil* JUDGE JUDGE
ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
KUMAR PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=8512f40a1a9eaa50b6802d068b51d
CHAURASIY
ae27e84c266b09d283f0799e67cdc7df50f,
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=EC534CBB3B245F050119F06F
4A296DD83C765A1E2ACC6EC7D8BD8CBCC9
A
C2446E, cn=ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA
Date: 2025.11.07 10:45:27 +05'30'
