IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT th ON THE 9 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 1564 of 2015 TEKCHAND JAIN AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Rabindra Kumar Mishra - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Prabhat Pateriya – Government Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER

This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):-

“(i) That, the order Annexure P/1 & P/2 be quashed with a further direction to restore the pay fixation made by the district authority in compliance of the Hon’ble Court order from the dated of confirmation.

(ii) That, the recovery imposed by the order annexure P/1 & P/2 be quashed.

(iii) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are aggrieved by the arbitrary action of the respondent authority in withdrawing the benefit of Adhyapak Samvarg granted to the petitioners just after completion of the probation period of three years, as per the decision taken by the authority in light of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 602/10 (Mohan Lal & Others Vs. State of M.P. & Others). It is further submitted that the petitioners were initially appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmis in the regular pay scale and after completion of the probation period of three years, were not extended the regular pay scale of Adhyapak Samvarg since 2001. In light of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mohan Lal (supra), respondent authority, while deciding the representations submitted by the petitioners, extended such benefit. However, subsequently, vide order dated 09.12.2014, the aforesaid benefit of the petitioners was cancelled and in a casual manner, an order of recovery was passed. It is further submitted that before issuing the impugned recovery order dated 02.03.2015, no proper opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioners. Although a show-cause notice was issued to petitioner and they submitted a detailed reply thereto but reply were not considered by the respondents and consequently, a non-speaking and unreasoned impugned recovery order dated

02.03.2015 was passed.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/State on the other hand opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner and supported the impugned order dated dated 2.3.2015.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Before issuing the impugned order dated 02.03.2015, a show-cause notice dated 08.01.2015 (Annexure P/6) was issued to the petitioner, and the petitioner submitted a reply thereto; however, the respondent did not consider the reply at all while passing the impugned order. Important part of the punishment order dated 02.3.2015 is quoted herein below:-

“mijksä lanfHkZr i= }kjk vkidks ,sfj;j jkf'k dh fjdojh 20 leku fdLrksa esa djus gsrq dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk ftlds lacaèk esa vkids }kjk çLrqr mÙkj larks"ktud u ik;s tkus ds dkj.k vkidh fjdojh çkjHk dh tkrh gSA”

Considering the aforesaid reply submitted by the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents and issued a non-speaking and unreasoned impugned recovery order.

6. It is a settled position in law that when a discretion is vested in an authority to exercise a particular power, the same is required to be exercised with due diligence, and in reasonable and rational manner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has reiterated time and again the necessity and importance of giving reasons by the authority in support of its decision. It has been held that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even by an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties must speak. The affected party must know how his case or defence was considered before passing the prejudicial order.

7. The decision of the Hon'ble Su