Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dheerendra Parashar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:43950
1 WP-5318-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 11th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 5318 of 2025
ARVIND KUMAR KHARE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Anand Bernard - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Hitendra Singh - Government Advocate for the Respondent/State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 2644 of 2025
DHEERENDRA PARASHAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Anand Bernard - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Hitendra Singh - Government Advocate for the Respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 3807 of 2025
JAWAHAR LAL JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Anand Bernard - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Hitendra Singh - Government Advocate for the Respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 5319 of 2025
DAMODAR PRASAD CHOUBEY
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 9/12/2025
10:30:04 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:43950
2 WP-5318-2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Anand Bernard - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Hitendra Singh - Government Advocate for the Respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 5330 of 2025
VINOD KUMAR JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Anand Bernard - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Hitendra Singh - Government Advocate for the Respondent/State.
ORDER
Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that these cases are
squarely covered by the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Writ Petition No.20612/2018 (Nandkishore Patel Vs. State of M.P. and
Others) which was confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal and
subsequently by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P. (Civil) Diary
No.34567/2025 decided on 16.07.2025. The said Order has been followed in
the case of similarly situated employees by this Court in Writ Petition
19064/2025 decided on 04.08.2025. The Petitioners are also similarly
situated.
2. It is submitted that the only difference is that in the aforesaid cases,
the benefit of arrears from the year 2008 till 2017 had not been paid to the
employees but in the present case, the said arrears have been paid and are
now being proposed to be recovered.
3. In Writ Petition No.19064/2025, this Court has passed the following
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:43950
3 WP-5318-2025
Order:-
"By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the
orders Annexure P/7 and P/13 dated 16.01.2023 and 21.04.2025
respectively.
2. The brief factual background of the matter necessary for
disposal of the present petition is that in a recruitment test was
conducted by the respondents for appointment on the post of
Forest Guard for the Departmental Daily Rated employees,
although the petitioner was successful, but he was not given offer
of appointment because of some wrong operation of merit list
District-wise by which more meritorious candidates were not
given offer of appointment while lesser meritorious candidates got
such offer. The petitioner agitated the said issue by filing WP No.
15727/2010, which was decided in terms of orders passed in
various such identical cases vide order dated 12.07.2011 directing
respondents to grant appointment to the petitioners therein in
appropriate circle. The said order was challenged by the
respondents in WA No. 1030/2011, which was dismissed on
13.12.2011 and then before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a batch
of SLPs lead by SLP (C) No. 17125/2012 which were dismissed
vide common order dated 05.05.2015 by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Thereafter, the respondents issued the fresh appointment order in
favour of the petitioner vide Annexure P/4 dated 04.01.2017. Now
the respondents have decided the issue of seniority of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:43950
4 WP-5318-2025
petitioner vide Annexure P/7 granting him seniority from
20.12.2008 at par with lesser meritorious candidates, who were
granted appointment, but the salary and wages for the intervening
period have been denied on the principle of 'No work no wages'.
This order dated 21.04.2025 (Annexure P/13) is also under
challenge before this Court whereby the petitioner has been treated
to be a fresh appointee from 2017 and the time bound pay scale
has been denied. The issue of the petitioner of granting seniority
from retrospective date has been settled by the respondents
themselves by issuing the order Annexure P/7 dated 16.01.2023
and therefore, there remains no iota of doubt that the petitioner's
services would be counted from 20.12.2008 for all purposes
including reckoning length of service for grant of time bound
upgradation. Therefore, the order Annexure P/13 to that extent is
vulnerable and cannot be given stamp of approval and deserves to
be and is hereby set aside directing respondents to consider the
services of the petitioner w.e.f. 20.12.2008 and grant benefit of
time bound upgradation and time scale of pay.
3. So far as the issue of salary for the intervening period is
concerned, the said issue is no longer res-integra because similarly
situated employee namely, Nand Kishore Patel had filed a petition
i.e. WP No. 20612/2018 before this Court and that case was also
related to the selection wherein earlier the appointment was
granted but later withdrawn and those employees also had
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:43950
5 WP-5318-2025
contested the matter upto the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court,
therefore, held them entitled to seniority and arrears of salary. The
coordinate Bench in WP No. 20612/2018 held as under:-
"1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India making a prayer to fix
them seniority from 1.9.2010 i.e. the date of their initial
appointment and to pay them difference of salary of
Forest Guard from 1.9.2010 to 6.1.2017. 2. Counsel
appearing for the petitioners submitted before this Court
that petitioners were selected and appointed on the post
of Forest Guard on 1.9.2010. Said order was cancelled
on 9.9.2010 applying policy of 1.10.2010. It is
submitted that policy which was issued by the State
Government on 1.10.2010 will not be applicable in the
case of petitioners as their recruitment process was over
and they were given appointment on 1.9.2010. Policy
issued by the State Government cannot be applied
retrospectively. It is submitted that petitioners were
successful in earlier writ petition filed by them.
Thereafter appeal and SLP filed by the State Govt. were
also dismissed. It is submitted that in view of the
aforesaid, petitioners are entitled to get seniority from
1.9.2010 and also to get difference of salary. It is
submitted that respondents had committed illegality in
issuing appointment letters to petitioners from 6.1.2017.
3. Govt. Advocate for the State has opposed the prayer
and submitted that initial appointment of petitioners was
cancelled and thereafter petitioners and respondents
were in litigation. Finally petitioners succeeded and
they have been given appointment on 6.1.2017. Since
their appointment has been cancelled vide order dated
9.9.2010 and they were given reappointment on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:43950
6 WP-5318-2025
6.1.2017, therefore, they are not entitled for difference
of pay and seniority. 4. Heard learned counsel for the
parties. 5. Action of respondents in cancelling the
appointment of petitioners vide order dated 9.9.2010
was held to be bad in law. Petitioners were on duty and
were doing work as daily wager. Since order was held
to be bad in law and petitioners were working with
respondents, therefore, they are entitled to get the
benefit of seniority and difference of salary from the
date of their initial appointment. There was no occasion
or reason with respondents to issue fresh appointment
letters to petitioners on 6.1.2017 and deny them
difference of salary and seniority. 6. Considering the
aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, writ
petition filed by the petitioners is allowed.
Respondents are directed to grant seniority and
difference of pay to petitioners from 1.9.2010. 7. With
the aforesaid directions, writ petition is disposed off."
4. The aforesaid order has been affirmed by the
Division Bench in WA No. 2267/2024 and subsequently
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No(s)
No. 34567/2025 decided on 16.07.2025.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the petition deserves to be
and is hereby allowed for the purpose of pay and
allowance for the intervening period and it is ordered
that the petitioner shall be entitled to get difference of
pay and allowances from 20.12.2008 till 06.01.2017.
The petitioner has already worked during the said
period with the respondents, though as a Daily rated
employee. Let needful be done by the respondents
authority within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of this order.
6. With the aforesaid observation and directions, this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:43950
7 WP-5318-2025
petition is allowed."
4. Learned counsel for the State though vehemently opposes the
petition but is not in a position to point out to any discriminating feature.
5. Consequently, the present petitions are also allowed in the similar
terms. The Orders impugned herein are set aside.
6. It is directed that the Petitioners are entitled for pay and allowances
for the intervening period and the recovery proposed from the Petitioner
stands quashed.
7. Let the needful be done by the respondents within a period of 45
days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni
