Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manik Lal Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50422
1 WP-27906-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
WRIT PETITION No. 27906 of 2021
MANIK LAL PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Kumar Chansauriya - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Akshansh Shrivastava - Panel Lawyer for the Respondent/State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 19649 of 2023
RAMGOPAL MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Kumar Chansauriya - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Akshansh Shrivastava - Panel Lawyer for the Respondent/State.
ORDER
Reserved on 29.07.2025
Pronounced on 07.10.2025
Both these Petitions are filed on identical facts and on identical issues,
therefore, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common
Order. For the sake of convenience, facts shall be taken from Writ Petition
No.27906/2021.
2. The Petitioners have called into question the alteration of fixation
carried out vide Annexure P-6 whereby the fixation of the payscale of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50422
2 WP-27906-2021
Petitioner in accordance with Seventh Pay Commission payscales
w.e.f.01.01.2016 has been modified and consequential recovery has been
ordered to be carried out against the Petitioners.
3. The case of the Petitioners as argued by learned counsel for the
Petitioner is that the Petitioner was appointed in the year 1991 in the
Respondent-Department and thereafter, Petitioner became entitled to get
second timescale of pay on completion of 20 years of service in
the Respondent/Department w.e.f.01.01.2016 and accordingly, upgradation
of payscale of Petitioner was carried out and approved by the concerned
authority and entry were made in the Service book. However, after some
time i.e, in the year 2020, the respondent No.2 cancelled the previous
fixation of pay and made a revised fixation on 06.01.2020 by proposing
recovery and without assigning any reason and without making a single
communication to the Petitioner as per which not only the substantive pay of
the Petitioner as on 01.01.2016 has been reduced but he has also been
subjected to recovery which is sought to be assailed seeking restoration of
substantive pay as well as seeking the relief that at least, recovery be set
aside in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.
4. Per contra, the respondents have contended that so far as the benefit
of judgment in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) is concerned, the Petitioners
are not entitled to get the said benefit because they had given an undertaking
and in view of subsequent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
High Court of Punjab & Haryana and Others Vs. Jagdev Singh reported in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50422
3 WP-27906-2021
2016 SCC Online SC 748 , the recovery part is recoverable, being backed by
undertaking. On the merits of the case, it is stated that the Petitioners were
entitled to get second financial upgradation w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and also
revision of payscale in Seventh Pay Commission payscales as on 01.01.2016
and a question arose that whether the pay as on 01.01.2016 shall be fixed
after first granting the benefit of financial upgradation and then granting
benefit of revision of payscale or first the revision of payscale has to be
granted in the old payscale to revised payscale and then the benefit of
financial upgradation is to be granted.
5. It is argued by the respondents that the proper course is to first grant
fixation in the Seventh Pay Commission and then to grant financial
upgradation. However, just contrary to the Rules, the Petitioner was first
granted financial upgradation and then granted benefit of Seventh Pay
Commission. Therefore, it is the case of respondents that two benefits were
to be given to the Petitioner as on 01.01.2016 but the serial/order in which
the two benefits had to be granted is in question and as per the respondents,
the wrong serial/order was followed.
6. Heard.
7. The sole question that arises in the case on merits is that whether
when financial upgradation as well as revision of payscale, both of which
were to be granted to the Petitioners as on 01.01.2016, were to be granted in
which order. In other words, whether firstly, benefit of financial upgradation
was to be granted and then benefit of Seventh Pay Commission was to be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50422
4 WP-27906-2021
granted in upgraded payscale or on the other hand firstly, benefit of revision
of payscale was to be granted in old pay scale to new/revised payscale and
then benefit of financial upgradation was to be granted in revised payscale.
8. As per M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 2017, which have been framed
in order to grant benefit of Seventh Pay Commission benefits to the
employees of the State Govt. it has been provided as under:-
^^13- 01 tuojh] 2016 dks vFkok mlds i"pkr~ inksUufr@le;eku ij osru dk fu/kkZj.k
la'kksf/kr osru lajpuk esa ,d ysoy ls nwljs ysoy esa inksUUfr@le;eku ds ekeys esa] osru
fu/kkZj.k fuEufyf[kr jhfr ls fd;k tk,xkA
¼i½ ,d osruo`f) ml ysoy esa nh tk,xh ftlesa ls 'kkldh; lsod inksUufr@le;eku fd;k
tk jgk gS vkSj mls ml in ftlesa inksUufr nh xbZ gS] ds ysoy esa bl izdkj izkIr jkf"k ds
lerqY; fdlh dksf"Bdk esa j[kk tk,xk vkSj ;fn ,slh dksbZ dksf"Bdk ml ysoy ftlesa inksUufr
nh xbZ gS] esa miyC/k ugha gS rks mls ml ysoy ls vxyh mPprj dksf"Bdk esa j[kk tk,xkA
mnkgj.k %&
1. Lka"kksf/kr osru lajpuk esa ysoy% ysoy osru 5200&20200
csM
6 xzsM 1800 1900 2100 2400
2. la'kksf/kr osru lajpuk esa ewy osru% osru
28500 ysoy 3 4 5 6
3. inksUufr@le;eku osrueku ds v/khu
1 18000 19500 22100 25300
foRRh; mUu;u fn;k x;k ysoy 7 esa 2 18500 20100 22800 26100
3 19100 20700 23500 26900
4 19700 21300 24200 27700
5 20300 21900 24900 28500
4. ysoy 6 esa ,d osruo`f) fn, tkus ds 6 20900 22600 25600 29400
i"pkr~ osru % 29400 7 21500 23300 26400 30300
5. mUur ysoy vFkkZr~ ysoy 7 esa osru %
29600 ¼ysoy 7 esa 29400 ds cjkcj ;k
mlls mPprj jkf"k½
9. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule 13 of Revision of Pay
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50422
5 WP-27906-2021
Rules, 2017, it is clear that firstly, benefit of revision of pay in the revised
payscale shall be granted and thereafter, the benefit of financial upgradation
shall be granted.
10. The State has also issued clarification to the aforesaid Revision of
Pay Rules, 2017 and the clarificatory Circular dated 02.11.2017 is on record
as Annexure RJ/2, as per which paragraph 5 clearly mentions that if the date
of financial upgradation of any employee is on 01.01.2016 or any date
thereafter then firstly benefit of revision of pay shall be granted and then the
benefit of Promotion/financial upgradation shall be granted. The relevant
paragraph 5 of clarificatory Circular dated 02.11.2017 is as under:-
osru iqujh{k.k fu;e 2017 ds vuqlkj e0iz0 osru iqujh{k.k fu;e 2017 dk fu;e 13
1&1&2016 dks ;fn fdlh 'kkldh; lsod iw.kZr% Li"V gSA fnukad 1&1&2016 ;k mlds
dh inksUufr gks tkrh gS rks mldk osru mijkar inksUufr@le;eku izkIr gksus ij
fu/kkZj.k 01&01&2016 dks inksUur in ij rnuqlkj osru fu/kkZj.k fd;k tkuk gS] lkrosa
/kkfjr osru ij fd;k tkosxk vFkok fnkad osrueku esa vFkkZr fnukad 01&01&2016 dks
31&12&2015 dks izkIr osru ds vk/kkj ij osru fu/kkZj.k fd;k tk;sxk rnqijkar
01&01&2016 dks osru fu/kkZfjr dj inksUufr@le;eku dk osru fu/kkZj.k gksxkA
rRi"pkr 1&1&2016 dks inksUur in ds
osru lajpuk esa osru fu/kkZfjr fd;k tk;sxk\
11. From the aforesaid clarification issued by the Finance Department,
it is clear that the Petitioner was erroneously granted benefit in the manner
that firstly, financial upgradation was calculated and then pay was revised
whereas it was to be done in the other way round.
12. Consequently, the substantive relief as prayed by the Petitioner
cannot be granted to the Petitioner and the respondents have rightly modified
the benefits of financial upgradation and revision of pay to the Petitioner.
13. So far as the question of recovery is concerned, the Petitioner has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50422
6 WP-27906-2021
clearly given an undertaking under Revision of Pay Rules 2017 that the
benefits which are being granted to the Petitioner w.e.f.01.01.2016 are liable
to be withdrawn in case any discrepancy is found in the matter at a later date.
14. In view of the undertaking placed on record as Annexure R-2, the
recovery cannot be set aside in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) .
15. Consequently, no relief can be granted to the Petitioners in these
Petitions and the Petitions stand dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni
