Madhya Pradesh High Court
Inder Singh Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 September, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:25399
1 WP-22746-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 8 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 22746 of 2022
INDER SINGH PARMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri L.C. Patne - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi - GA for State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 19275 of 2024
DR. LAL SINGH CHONGAD
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri L.C. Patne - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi - GA for State.
WRIT PETITION No. 19282 of 2024
DR. (MRS.) KAVITA THAKUR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri L.C. Patne - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi - GA for State.
ORDER
Regard being had to the similitude of the facts and issues involved in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:25399
2 WP-22746-2022
present case, the same are being disposed of by the common order.
For the sake of convenience, facts are noted from WP No.19275/2024.
In the instant petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 11.8.2023 issued by the
respondent No.3 directing withdrawal of the pay fixation order issued in favour of
the petitioner sanctioning him annual increments after completion of one year of
service upon his confirmation on the post of Assistant Professor on the ground that
the same is not being approved by respondent No.4 whereas the petitioner has
been conferred the benefit of actual increments after completion of one year of
service. Thus, the petitioner is aggrieved on the part of the respondents' in not
sanctioning the petitioner the benefit of senior scale of Rs.10,000-15200.
The respondents have filed the reply and denied the claim of the petitioner.
He argued that the State government vide order dated 29.4.2017 has revoked the
probation period of the petitioner and has passed order Annexure R/1 terminating
the period of the petitioner and sanctioned the required pay scale to the petitioner,
and also pay fixation was done with the approval of the treasury and accounts. He
argued that the treasury has taken the objection to the probation period of the
petitioner. Accordingly, the competent authority has passed the order dated 2/3-1-
2024 Annexure R/3.
After hearing learned counsel for parties, this Court finds that the issue
involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the full
bench in the case of Arun Parmar Vs. State of MP & Ors. 2021(2) MPLJ 500, G.P.
Doval & Ors. Vs. Chief Secretary, GBovt. of UP & Ors (1984) 4 SCC 329, L.
Chandrakishore Vs. State of Manipur & Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 287 and also the
judgment passed in the case of S. Somnyan & Ors. Vs. Limi Niri & Ors (2010) 6
SCC 791 .
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:25399
3 WP-22746-2022
In light of the aforesaid judgments, the facts of the present case are
examined, and it is noted that the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit on the
said ground. Subsequently, the probation period of the petitioner has been
terminated, thereby meaning all his services have been found to be suitable. Thus,
the probation period has to be counted.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.8.2023
is quashed. Respondents are directed to grant the petitioner annual increment,
Senior Grade Pay Scale 3000-5000/- (revised to Rs.10,000-15,200/- w.e.f.
1.1.1996), Selection Grade Pay Scale of Rs.3700-5700/- (revised to Rs. 12,000-
18,300/ w.e.f. 1.1.1996) and the benefit of Pay Band IV ie. placement in the pay
scale of Rs.37,400-67,000/- + AGP 9,000/-, By counting his services from the date
of his initial appointment i.e. w.e.f. 5.7.2005 and to refix the pay of the petitioner
and to release arrears thereof along with interest @ ~12% p.a and to refix the pay
of the petitioner and to release the arrears along with 6% interest from the date it
became due. All the aforesaid exercises shall be carried out within 90 days from
the date of filing of copy of the order passed today.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
VM
