IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI

nd

ON THE 22 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT APPEAL No. 3669 of 2025 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Versus MAMTA SHUKLA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Prasanna R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner.

ORDER Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla Heard on IA No.11576/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay.

The delay in filing the appeal is duly explained in the application, which is well supported by an affidavit; therefore, the application is allowed.

Delay is condoned.

Also heard on the question of admission.

The present writ appeal is filed under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaay (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 23.04.2024 passed in WP No.11524/2020, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the recovery of Rs.1,23,910/- from Writ Petitioner No.1 and Rs. 8,45,875/- from Writ Petitioner No.2, referring to the judgment passed by the this court in the cases of State of MP Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey passed in WA No.815/2017.

The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, quashing the order of recovery mainly on the ground that there was no fraud, cheating or misrepresentation on the part of the employee and also that the undertaking furnished by the petitioner was not in respect of the period for which the recovery was sought to be made.

Learned counsel for the appellant/state submitted that while quashing the order of recovery, the learned Single Judge also observed in the last line that the pay fixation of the petitioner is maintained. He argued that the said issue of pay fixation of the petitioner was not considered by the learned Single Judge as the same was not before it. The challenge was only to the recovery.

The said submission was not disputed by learned counsel for the writ petitioner. However, he submits that despite the order passed by this Court, his retiral dues are still withheld on the pretext of the aforesaid recovery.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record and the order of the learned Single Judge, we find that the learned Single Judge erred while holding the pay fixation of the writ petition in pursuant to which recovery is made maintained. Though the said issue was not before the learned Single Judge.

In view of the aforesaid, the last line of the order "Pay fixation of the petitioner is however, maintained" is set aside and the said part is deleted from the impugned order.

However, it would be open for the petitioner to raise the issue of pay fixation in accordance with the law, if so advised. It is further observed that in case if the retiral dues of the writ petition is withheld only on the pretext of the aforesaid recovery order, which has already been quashed by the learned Single Judge, the department shall release the retiral dues of the writ petition in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid, the present writ appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)

JUDGE JUDGE Sourabh