IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT th ON THE 17 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 6662 of 2017 NARENDRA KUMAR GAUTAM Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Janmajay Singh Tomar – learned counsel for petitioner.

Ms. Smrati Sharma – learned Government Advocate for respondent/State.

Shri Narottam Sharma - learned counsel for respondent No.3 and 4.

ORDER

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

(i) That the impugned order dated 25-09-2017 (Ann. P/1)

passed by respondent no. 3 may kindly be quashed.

(ii) That, respondents may kindly be restrained to make any recovery from the petitioner’s pay as same has been extended by the competent authority at the time of petitioner’s appointment.

(iii) Cost and any other wit with this Hon’ble court kindly be awarded.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that initially petitioner was appointed on the post of Technician in the pay scale of Rs. 5200–20200 + Rs. 2400/- grade pay. It is further submitted that in the month of August, 2017, petitioner was being paid basic pay of Rs. 8370/- + grade pay of Rs. 2400/- and accordingly he was earning a total amount of Rs. 25,580/-. It is further submitted that thereafter, all of a sudden, without issuance of any show-cause notice, without giving any opportunity of hearing, and without complying with the principles of natural justice, impugned order dated 25.09.2017 (Annexure P/1) was issued by respondent No. 3, whereby the basic pay of petitioner was reduced from Rs. 7440/- to Rs. 5200/- stating that as per Rule 33(1) of Chapter IV, a candidate appointed through direct recruitment shall be fixed at the minimum pay of the pay scale of the post to which he was appointed. It is further submitted that petitioner is a Class-III employee and since the impugned order entails civil consequences, an opportunity of hearing ought to have been afforded to the petitioner. It is submitted that the case of petitioner is fully covered by Direction No. 1 of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334. Since petitioner is a Class-III employee, the Hon’ble Apex Court has already held that recovery of excess payment from Class-III and Class-IV employees is impermissible. It is further submitted that petitioner has not suppressed any facts from the respondents and has not made any misrepresentation at any point of time. It is submitted that respondents themselves extended the benefit to petitioner and there is no fault on the part of petitioner in receiving the so-called excess payment, which he has been receiving since July, 2013. He placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of M.P. Medical Officers Association vs.

State of M.P. and others passed in Civil Appeal No.5527/2022 vide judgment dated 26/08/2022 wherein the Apex Court has quashed the recovery of excess amount and has directed to refund the entire amount which was recovered from the employees who were in service. Hence, learned counsel for petitioner prays to allow this petition.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner and supported the impugned order. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per Service Regulation Clause 33(1) of the M.P. Cooperative Society Act, the initial pay of direct recruit employees shall be fixed at the minimum of the pay scale to which they have been appointed. It is further submitted that benefit was wrongly extended to petitioner on the basis of circular dated 20.08.2009, which was neither approved by the Registrar nor adopted by respondents No. 3 and 4. Meaning thereby, at the time of initial fixation of pay upon direct recruitment, the petitioner’s pay was erroneously fixed at a higher stage by granting the bene