Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Smt. Meera Arya on 7 October, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24896
1 WA-2871-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
ON THE 7 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 2871 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. MEERA ARYA
Appearance:
Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General for appellants/State.
Shri Anuj Pratap Singh Chauhan - Advocate for the respondent.
WRIT APPEAL No. 2875 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. SAROJ SHARMA
Appearance:
Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General for appellants/State.
Shri Shashank Indapurkar - Advocate for the respondent.
WRIT APPEAL No. 2874 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. NEETU KUSHWAH
Appearance:
Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General for appellants/State.
Shri C.R. Roman - Advocate for the respondent.
WRIT APPEAL No. 2882 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH
CHAURASIA
Signing time: 10/8/2025
2:45:54 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24896
2 WA-2871-2025
Versus
UMA KANTI PARIHAR
Appearance:
Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General for appellants/State.
Shri Anuj Pratap Singh Chauhan - Advocate for the respondent.
WRIT APPEAL No. 2877 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
PRAVEEN SHUKLA
Appearance:
Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General for appellants/State.
Shri Shashank Indapurkar - Advocate for the respondent.
WRIT APPEAL No. 2873 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
RADHA MOHAN SINGH TOMAR
Appearance:
Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General for appellants/State.
Shri Shashank Indapurkar - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
BASHIR KHAN
Appearance:
Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General for appellants/State.
Shri Shashank Indapurkar - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
Heard on I.A.No.12133/2025 (W.A.No.2871/2025),
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24896
3 WA-2871-2025
I.A.No.12135/2025 (W.A.No.2872/2025), I.A.No.12136/2025
(W.A.No.2873/2025), I.A.No.12146/2025 (W.A.No.2877/2025),
I.A.No.12154/2025 (W.A.No.2882/2025), I.A.No.12139/2025
(W.A.No.2874/2025), I.A.No.12142/2025 (W.A.No.2875/2025),
applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay
in filing the appeals, are taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons
mentioned therein and as not objected by counsel for respondent.
2. Regard being had to similitude of the dispute, all the writ appeals
are being heard analogously and decided by this common judgment. For
factual clarity, facts of Writ Appeal No.2871/2025 are taken into
consideration.
3. The present writ appeal preferred under Section 2 of the Madhya
Pradesh Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005
by appellant/State against the orders dated 25.10.2023, passed in Writ
Petition No.15787/2021, whereby petition preferred by appellant (petitioner
therein) stands disposed of with certain directions.
4. 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.S.H. Baig and Ors. vs. State of M.P. and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24896
4 WA-2871-2025
Orsvs. 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.
5. Counsel for the appellant/State could not dispute the passing of such
order and fairly submit that controversy is no longer res-integra.
6. After going through the judgment, it appears that no further
discussion is required. Resultantly, all the writ appeals preferred by
appellant/State are hereby dismissed and the orders passed by learned Writ
Court are hereby affirmed.
(ANAND PATHAK) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ashish*
