Madhya Pradesh High Court
Indore Municipal Corporation Through ... vs Vinita Tiwari on 31 October, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:
IND: 31707
-1- WA-2977-2025
W
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 31st OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 2977 of 2025
INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH AUTHORISED
SIGNATORY NAME RAJENDRA NARAYAN GAIROTHIYA
Versus
VINITA TIWARI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aniket Naik - Advocate for the appellant.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
This appeal under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayaylay
(Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed by the
appellant/Indore
/Indore Municipal Corporation challenging the order dated 18.08.2025
passed by the learned writ Court whereby Writ Petition No. 2353/2023 has been
allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under :
2.1 The respondents No.1
No. to 9 (writ petitioners) weree appointed as
Community Organizers
ers on contractual basis on fixed monthly remuneration
under the Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana vide different orders passed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:
IND: 31707
-2- WA-2977-2025
W
between the year 1999 to 2001. The sanction for the appointment was given by
the Committee headed by the Collector after cal
calling
ling the eligible candidates from
the Employment Exchange. The writ petitioners participated in the eligibility
tests and interviews.. Thereafter, they were selected for the posts in question.
After rendering service of more than a decade, they were regul
regularized
arized vide order
dated 01.07.2020 by the appellant/Indore Municipal Corporation (IMC).
(IMC) The
services of the writ petition
petitioners were governed by the Madhya Pradesh
Municipal Corporations (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Officers
and Servants) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 2000').
2000')
Initially, the writ petitioners were appointed on two years' probation period,
thereafter, they became eligible for regularization. After completion of the two
years probation, instead of regularizing, a direction was issued for cancelling
their appointments vide order dated 07.07.2022. The writ petitioners
immediately approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 16051/2022 and
vide
de order dated 19.07.2022, this Court stayed the operation of the order dated
07.07.2022, hence, they are continuing in service.
2.2 Subsequently, the appellant/
appellant/IMC issued an order dated 06.09.2022 for
recovery from the salary of the writ petitioners by placing reliance on the
circular dated 12.12.2019 (Annexure P/2) on the ground that during the
probation period, the writ petitioners were entitled to get only 70%, 80% and
90% of the minimum pay scale as stipend for the first, second and third year of
the probation, respectively but they were paid the regular minimum pay scales.
Hence, the excess amount is liable to be recovered. The writ petitioners
approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 2353/2023.
2353/2023 The
appellant/IMC filed their reply to justify their impugned action by submitting
that the service conditions of the writ petitioners are governed by the Rules of
2000 and the Fundamental Rules. The FR-22C
22C stipulates that the employee
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:
IND: 31707
-3- WA-2977-2025
W
shall receive 70% of the total stipend payable in the firs
firstt year and 80% of the
total stipend in the second year of the probation period. Therefore, the recovery
has rightly been ordered.
2.3 The learned Writ Court vide order dated 02.03.2023 declined to grant the
interim relief to the petitioner. The writ petition was
as finally heard and decided
vide impugned order dated 18.08.2025 by setting aside the order of recovery
and directed to refund the amount, if any recovered, along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum
m by relying on the judgment passed by the Full
Ful Bench of
this Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Jagdish Prasad
Dubey & Anr., Writ Appeal No. 815 of 2017 and the judgment passed by the
Apex
pex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White
Washer) etc. (2015) 4 SCC 334.. Hence, this writ appeal before this Court.
Submissions of the counsel for the appellant
3. Shri Aniket Naik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/IMC
submits that the learned writ Court has allowed the writ petition treating it to be
a matter of undertaking given by the writ petitioners/employees. The recovery
has been directed to be recovered during the service period of the writ
petitioners, not at the time or after retirement. Hence, the law laid down in case
of Jagdish Prasad and Rafiq Masih (supra) has wrongly been applied. The
appellant/IMC took action strictly in accordance with law i.e. FR
FR--22C of the
Fundamental Rules.
Appreciations and Conclusion
4. The respondents/writ petitioners were regularized vide order dated
01.07.2020 issued by the appellant/IMC upon recommendation of the five
Member Committee dated 18.11.2019. They were regularized on the pay scale
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:
IND: 31707
-4- WA-2977-2025
W
of Rs. 9300-34800
34800 + 3200 Grade
Grad Pay on a two-year probation period and their
services shall be governed by the Rules of 2000. The
he aforesaid order nowhere
stipulates the condition that they will be entitled to get only 70%, 80% and 90 of
the minimum pay scale for the first, second and third year, respectively during
the probation period as stipend. At that time, the circular dated 12.12.2019 was
already in force.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the FR-22C
FR
which has been inserted by way of amendment dated vide Gazette Notification
dated 22.02.2020. Clause (1)(a) of the said amendment stipulates that a person
p
appointed through the Public Service Commission, shall receive the minimum
of the pay scale during the probation period. Clause (1)(b) stipulates that the
service for which selection is not recommended by the Madhya Pradesh Public
Service Commission, the selected
select Government Servant during the probation
period of three years will get 70% of the minimum pay
pay-scale
scale of the post in the
first year, 80% in the second year and 90% in the third year of the probation
period. Therefore, it is clear from Clause (1)(a) and (b) that this condition has
been made applicable for those appointment which are made by the MPPSC,
and if there is no recommendation then the appointees will be entitled to get the
70%, 80% and 90% of the minimum pay scales during their three years
y of
probation period.
6. For the Class III and Class IV employees, the circular dated 12.12.2019
was issued by the General Administration Department for the persons whose
services are governed by the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General
Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 under Rule 8(1). Clause 2 of the circular
stipulates that above conditions shall be made applicable to those posts for
which the Public Service Commission does not conduct the selection
examination. The Finance Department was authorized to make the amendment
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:
IND: 31707
-5- WA-2977-2025
W
in the Madhya Pradesh Fundamental Rules. Therefore, there cannot be a
discrimination between the employees appointed through MPPSC and the
employees appointed by other agencies
agencies of the State. Those who are appointed
through the MPPSC will get the minimum pay scales and the employees
appointed by other State agencies will get 70%, 80% and 90% of the minimum
pay scale during the first, second and third years of the probation period. There
is no reasonableness in creating two classes of probation
probationers. The circular dated
12.12.2019 of the GAD has already been deprecated by this Court in W.A.No.
1498 of 2024 in case of the State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Dilliraj
Bhilala vide order dated 28.04.2025. If an employee is appointed on a post
through proper channel after following the due process even on probation,
probation
he/she is entitled to get minimum pay scale at par with other employees under
the principle of 'Equal Pay
ay for Equal Work'.. There is no reason or logic for
payment of stipend at the rate of 70%, 80% and 90% of the minimum pay scale
during the probation period. Therefore, the objection taken by the appellant is
not tenable. The petitioners have worked on the post in question therefore they
are entitled to get full salary of the post without any deduction.
7. In view of the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, we do not find any
illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned writ Court.
Accordingly,
dingly, finding no ground for interference, this appeal stands dismissed.
dismissed
No order as to cost.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
