IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 13 OF OCTOBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 17799 of 2023 MRS. KAVITA DEHALWAR Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Hare Krishana Upadhyay - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Sanjay Kumar Patel - Central Government Advocate for the respondent No.1.

Shri Yogesh Bhatnagar - Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 to 4.

ORDER By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- "I. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to 4 to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 30.06.2023 produced as Annexure P/7 and further be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 to 4 to revise the Grade Pay of petitioner to Rs. Rs.8000/- as has been given to the persons who were junior to the petitioner.

II. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned x order dated 14.06.2023 passed by the Respondent No. 4 vide Annexure P/6.

IlI. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to 4 to grant the 50% of salary amounting to Rs.51,24,940 (Fifty One lakh twenty four thousand Nine hundred and forty) for the period petitioner was not allowed to work.

IV . Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit."

2. Necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of present petition are that the petitioner was earlier working as Assistant Professor Grade-II in the respondent No.2 - Institution and vide order dated 05.03.2015 her services was terminated, which was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing W.P. No.8575/2015, whereby this Court allowed the petition with the following directions:-

"31. In the result, petition is allowed. The orders dated 29.05.2015 and 05.03.2021 (with regard to petitioner only) is set aside. The petitioner be reinstated in service within a period of six weeks. Since the services of petitioner has been wrongly terminated, she would be entitled for

50% towards her salary."

3. The dispute emanates now that though the respondents have granted 50%

of back wages to the petitioner, but they have only paid 50% of basic pay of the petitioner and have not paid Dearness Allowance, Travelling Allowance and House Rent Allowance to the petitioner. The second grievance of the petitioner is that though the revision of pay scale as per Seventh CPC came into force in the institution w.e.f. 1.01.2016, but she has been granted benefit of the said Seventh CPC only from the date of joining and despite having been ordered to be reinstated by this Court, the back wages have not been given to her under Seventh CPC, but have been given to her under Sixth CPC, that too at the basic salary which she was drawing and she has been denied the benefit of Seventh CPC w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and she has firstly not received the back wages as per Seventh CPC and secondly, received increments also after her date of joining, i.e. after 18.07.2022 and she has been denied notional increments w.e.f. 01.01.2016. In other words, the entire benefits under Seventh CPC have been given to the petitioner from 18.07.2022.

4. Upon hearing the rival parties, it is clear that the respondents have treated the reinstatement of petitioner as if the period of termination from 05.03.2015 till date of reinstatement, i.e. 18.07.2022 is a dies-non period and only 50% of the last drawn wages that too, basic salary has been paid to the petitioner.

5. This Court had categorically ordered the respondents to pay 50% of salary to the petitioner. Salary would necessarily mean the basic pay and all necessary allowances as paid to a government servant from time to time, as per Central Civil Services Revised Pay Rules framed by the Government from time to time, which are undoubtedly applicable to the respondent No.2 - Institution.

6. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324 that the word "reinstatement" has no