Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Sumita Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 October, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26635
1 WA-2696-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
ON THE 17th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 2696 of 2025
SMT SUMITA SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Alok Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ankur Mody - Additional Advocate General for the respondents/ State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
1 . Heard on I.A. No.11414/2025, an application for condonation of
delay.
2. As per office note, the appeal is barred by 159 days.
3. On due consideration, for the reasons stated in the application and in
the interest of justice, I.A. is allowed.
4. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
5 . Learned counsel for the appellant submits that earlier the Division
Bench of the Court at Principal Seat Jabalpur passed an order dated
23/07/2025 in W.A. No.1657/2025 (State of M.P. and Others Vs. Ramrao
Bhimte) and relying upon the said judgment, the Writ Appeal No.777/2025
preferred by the employee (Shyam Bihari Sharma Vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh and Ors.) was allowed by this Court vide order dated 05/08/2025 and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26635
2 WA-2696-2025
recovery initiated by the Police department stood quashed.
6. According to counsel for the appellant, present case also falls in the
same category and facts of present case are akin to the facts narrated in the
Shyam Bihari case as referred above.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents/State could not dispute the fact
regarding passing of aforesaid order.
8. Heard.
9. This Court in the case of Shyam Bihari Sharma (supra) has passed
the following order:-
"(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow
this petition and further be pleased to declare the impugned order
of revised pay fixation, Annexure P-2, letter asking for recovery
with recovery calculation calculation sheet, Annexure P/1, issued
by respondents as illegal and the same may kindly be quashed.
(ii) That, Respondents may kindly be directed to correct the
pay fixation of petitioner granting him the benefits admissible time
to time placing at proper stage at the time of fixation after
increment, fixation on promotion, Kramonnati and time scale, and
other admissible benefits.
(iii) That, respondents may further be directed to settle the
Pension, Gratuity, G.P.F. and other retiral dues of petitioner after
correcting the pay fixation and pay arrear of retiral dues and
pension with 12% p.a. interest.
(iv) That, respondents may kindly be restrained from
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26635
3 WA-2696-2025
effecting any recovery from the retiral dues and pension of
petitioner.
(v) That, interest on delayed payment of retiral dues may
kindly be awarded @ 12% p.a. as held in the case of State of M.P.
Vs. Ramji Das Agrawal, MPLJ 2013(1) 53. (vi) Any other relief,
which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be
given to the petitioner along with costs.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that salary of
petitioner has been revised and now he is directed to refund
Rs.25,29,186/- and as a consequence thereof petitioner is not paid
his retiral benefits.
3. It is submitted by counsel for the State that in the light of
the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of S.H Baig &
Ors. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors in Civil Appeal
Nos.9888-9899 of 2018 as well as in the light of judgment
rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of The State
of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey in Writ
Appeal No.815 of 2017 decided on 06.03.2024 [Principal Seat]
recovery can be effected from the ministerial staff.
4. Heard learned counsel for parties.
5. This Court, in the case of Bhim Shankar Kshetri And
Others Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others decided on
28.11.2024 in WP. No.26092 of 2019 has held as under:
2. It is fairly conceded by counsel for petitioners that since
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26635
4 WA-2696-2025
petitioners are the ministerial staff, therefore, in the light of the
judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of S.H Baig
& Ors. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors in Civil Appeal
Nos.9888-9899 of 2018 as well as judgment passed by Full Bench
of this Court in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh and
others Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey in Writ Appeal No.815 of 2017
decided on 06.03.2024 [Principal Seat], the petitioners have no
case for challenging recovery.
3. In view of the statement made by counsel for petitioners
and in the light of the judgment rendered by Supreme Court in the
case of S.H Baig (supra) and the judgment passed by Full Bench
of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra), this
petition is dismissed.
6. Accordingly, in the light of judgment passed by Supreme
Court in the case of S.H. Baig (supra) and by Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra), recovery can be
made from the ministerial staff. Thus, no case is made out
warranting interference.
7. Consequently, petition fails and is hereby dismissed."
1 0 . In view of the aforesaid, this writ appeal stands allowed and
disposed of and direction contained in the case of Shyam Bihari (supra) shall
apply to the case of present appellant mutatis mutandis with full force.
11. Consequently, recovery made against the appellant stands quashed
and refund shall be made to the appellant as per direction contained in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26635
5 WA-2696-2025
case of Shyam Bihari (supra) case.
Disposed of.
(ANAND PATHAK) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
VC
