Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 504 (MP)

Ashok Singh Chandel v. Home Department (Police)

2025-08-18

VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

body2025
ORDER 1. Regard being had to the similitude of the facts, the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In these petitions, the petitioners who are working on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector Radio are challenging the order of recovery on account of wrong fixation of pay. 3. He argued that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment passed in the case of Gangaram Gautam v. State of MP and Ors passed in WP No.16054/2018 decided on 14.7.2018. 4. It is further argued that the respondents passed the impugned order of recovery mainly on the ground that the petitioner was wrongly given the pay scale as he has already got the promotion and, therefore, in view of the circular dated 13.11.2009, Annexure R-1, the petitioner was not entitled for first time bound pay scale in his salary. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid circular has already been quashed by this Court in the case of Pratap Narayan Vishwakarma v. State of M.P. and others, 2016 (4) MPLJ 491 . In that case, after considering the submissions made by the parties the writ petition was allowed mainly on the ground that the circular dated 13.11.2009 by which the previous circular dated 1.4.2008 was clarified, could not be applied to the case of the petitioner as the said circular was prospective in nature. The circular was quashed being discriminatory and violative of provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The order dated 16.1.2017 was challenged by way of intra Court appeal in Writ Appeal. The said appeal was dismissed by order dated 13.3.2018. The relevant paras of the order passed by the Division Bench reads as under :- "4.After considering the submission made by the parties the learned single judge has allowed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the circular dated 13.11.2009, by which the previous circular dated 1.4.2008 was clarified would not apply to the case of the present writ petitioner as the same circular has got only prospective effect. 5.In the case of Pradeep Narayan Vishwakarma (supra) this Court has quashed the circular dated 13.11.2009 being violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the same has been held to be discriminatory and creating a class within a class. 5.In the case of Pradeep Narayan Vishwakarma (supra) this Court has quashed the circular dated 13.11.2009 being violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the same has been held to be discriminatory and creating a class within a class. It has not been pointed out that the judgment passed in the case of Pradeep Narayan Vishwakarma (supra) has been over ruled. Since the circular dated 13.11.2009 itself has been held to be void and has been quashed by this Court the contention of the appellants cannot be accepted that the writ petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of time scale pay in the light of the Clarification No.3 of circular dated 13.11.2009. We may not in agreement with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge but since the relevant Clause-3 of the circular dated 13.11.2009 has already been quashed by this Court and the said order has not been overruled by any Court of law, therefore, we do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge quashing the order dated 11/8/2015 denying the time scale pay to the writ petitioner and directing for the payment of the said time scale pay." 6. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jabalpur in W.P. No.7091/2020 (Chiran Sumer (supra) )and other connected batch of petitions while allowing the said petitions quashed the impugned order and directed to make fixation of salary of the petitioner w.e.f 1.4.2006 and further directed to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner. 7. Counsel for the State supports the order of recovery and submits that the order relied by the petitioner was only in respect of petitioners and it was not applicable to all the employees. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.7091/2020 (Chiran Sumer (supra)) and other connected petitions. The respondents relied on the circular dated 13.11.2009 which has been annexed as Annexure R-1. The said circular has already been quashed by this Court in the case of Pratap Narayan Vishwakarma (supra) which has been affirmed by the Division Bench. The order passed by the Division Bench has been referred by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.7091/2020. 9. The said circular has already been quashed by this Court in the case of Pratap Narayan Vishwakarma (supra) which has been affirmed by the Division Bench. The order passed by the Division Bench has been referred by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.7091/2020. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed. The impugned orders of recovery are quashed. The respondents are directed to make fixation of salary of the petitioner as per order dated 5.5.2012 w.e.f 1.4.2006. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within period of 3 months from the date of communication of the order and the petitioner shall be granted consequential benefits. The amount has not been recovered, therefore, no order of return of the amount is being passed.