Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kamla Parwani vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 September, 2025
1 WP-24649-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 9 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 24649 of 2019
SMT. KAMLA PARWANI
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Awadhesh Kumar Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Akshansh Shrivastava - Panel Lawyer for the respondent - State.
ORDER
By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the recovery of Rs.1,32,577/- ordered from her gratuity upon retirement on 28.02.2017.
2 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has retired from the post of Chowkidar, which is a Class-IV post on 28.02.2017 and upon retirement the impugned recovery was intimated to her.
3 . As per reply of the respondents, the recovery is on account of erroneous grant of benefit of financial upgradation/ACP to the petitioner and while granting financial upgradation, it is stated that the pay of the petitioner was erroneously fixed at some higher stage and erroneous benefits were granted. The respondents have also relied on certain undertakings.
4. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and documents placed on record, it is evident that certain undertakings have been placed on record by the State, which are dated 09.08.1998 and another undated undertaking is Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 9/12/2025 3:19:43 PM 2 WP-24649-2019 on record which is in reference to Pay Revision Rules of 2009, hence it must be signed somewhere after 2009. Upon consideration of the said undertakings, it is seen that the first undertaking, i.e. one dated 09.08.1998 is in respect of grant of revised pay scale to the petitioner as per MP Worked Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Pay Revision Rules, 1998 which were effective from 01.01.1996. The respondents have not come out with any plea that the pay of the petitioner was erroneously fixed at some higher stage in terms with the Pay Revision Rules of 1998, which were effective from 01.01.1996. The defence of the respondents is that the petitioner was erroneously granted some financial upgradation in the year 1996. Therefore, the undertaking seems to be totally irrelevant to the recovery ordered from the petitioner.
5. So far as the other undertaking, which is undated and seems to be given somewhere after 2009 is concerned, the said undertaking is also totally irrelevant, because it is in terms of M.P. Pay Revision Rules, 2009, whereas the alleged erroneous fixation has taken place in the year 1996. Therefore, the State cannot derive any advantage out of both the undertakings.
6. The petitioner is a retired Class-IV employee and the case is squarely covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih & Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, which was also taken into account by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey & Others (W.A. No.815 of 2017) decided on 06.03.2024.
7. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned recovery is set Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 9/12/2025 3:19:43 PM 3 WP-24649-2019 aside. The amount already recovered be refunded back to the petitioner within 60 days, failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of this order.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE rj Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 9/12/2025 3:19:43 PM