[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Dinesh Chandra Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:682
1 WP-765-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 8 th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 765 of 2017
DR. DINESH CHANDRA SHUKLA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Singh Rathore - learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Ravindra Dixit - learned Government Advocate for
respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking following relief(s):
"(i) That, the respondents may kindly be directed not be recovered
interest amount of Rs.3,53,329/- from petitioner.
(ii) That, the order Annexure P/1 kindly be quashed.
(iii) That, the order Annexure P/3 kindly be set aside.
(iv) That, Any other writ order and direction, which is found just,
suitable and proper in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be
granted to the petitioner."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer only to the
recovery of excess payment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the
respondents/State jointly submitted that the controversy involved in the
present case has already been decided by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No. 5527 of 2022 vide order dated 26.8.2022. The relevant paragraphs of the
said case are reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:682
2 WP-765-2017
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and
having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by
the Division Bench of the High Court and the ground on which the
circular dated 23.05.2009 was withdrawn namely, the same was
issued without authority and/or competence and was issued
without any approval and/or concurrence of the Finance
Department as the benefits flowing from the circular dated
23.05.2009 were having financial implications/burden, we see no
reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court upholding the
communication dated 30.05.2012 withdrawing the circular dated
23.05.2009. The Division Bench of the High Court is absolutely
justified in quashing and setting aside the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court quashing the
communication dated 30.05.2012 withdrawing the circular dated
23.05.2009.
4.1 However, at the same time, the Division Bench of the High
Court has erred in quashing and setting aside the judgment and
order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ
petitions and setting aside the recovery of excess amount paid for
the period between 2009 to 2012, which was sought to be
recovered with interest.
5. It is not in dispute that the members of the appellant association,
who were serving as Specialists, Dental Specialists and officers in
the specialist's cadre got the benefits under the circular dated
23.05.2009. It was the Department/State, who issued the circular
dated 23.05.2009 and paid the benefits under the circular dated
23.05.2009 to the members of the appellant association, which
subsequently came to be withdrawn by the State in the year 2012.
Therefore, as such, there was neither any misrepresentation on the
part of the concerned employees - members of the appellant
association nor can the mistake be attributed to them. The mistake,
if any, can be said to be that of the Department/State, who issued
the circular dated 23.05.2009 under which the members of the
association were given certain benefits till the same was
withdrawn in the year 2012. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, the State was not justified in ordering
recovery of the excess amount paid along with the interest. It is
true that stricto sensu, the decision of this Court in the case of
State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334
may not be applicable. However, at the same time, as observed
hereinabove, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
State was not justified in ordering recovery of the excess amount
paid with interest, more particularly, when it is reported that some
of the doctors/dentists - members of the association have retired
on attaining the age of superannuation and the recovery shall be
from their pension/pensionary benefits. However, at the same
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:682
3 WP-765-2017
time, their pay fixation and the pension shall have to be as per the
order dated 26.08.2008.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these
Appeals Succeed in part. The impugned judgment and order
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court upholding the
recovery of the excess amount paid alongwith interest is hereby
quashed and set aside.
In result, there shall not be any recovery of the excess amount paid
pursuant to the circular dated 23.05.2009 till the same was
withdrawn on 30.05.2012. However, for all other purposes
including the pay fixation and pension etc., the same shall be now
worked out as per the order dated 26.08.2008, as if, the circular
dated 23.05.2009 was never issued.
Present appeals are accordingly partly allowed to the aforesaid
extent. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there
shall be no order as to costs.
4. Keeping in view the judgement dated 26.8.2022 passed by the
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5527/2022, the recovery mentioned in
Annexure P-1 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the
recovered amount of Rs. 1,92,159/- to the petitioner within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case the
order is not complied with within the stipulated period of two months, the
respondents shall pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
recovery till the date of actual payment.
5. With the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of.
6. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Ahmad
