JABALPUR, India, Sept. 30 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on Aug. 29:

1. In the instant petition, the appellant/University has assailed the order dated 14.08.2024 passed in W.P.No.26585/2023, whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent/employee was allowed and the order dated 03.04.2023 was set aside, by which the pay fixation of the respondent was revised by the Registrar and the erroneously paid amount was proposed to be recovered from the retiral dues. Further direction was issued to pay the retiral dues to the respondent within a period of 90 days along with the interest @6% per annum.

2. Heard Shri Paritosh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Devdatt Bhave, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Shri Abhimanyu Singh, learned counsel for the respondent [CAVEAT] for the purpose of final disposal of the appeal.

3. The short facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed on the post of Glass Blower on an ad hoc basis vide order dated 15.09.1989 after following the due process of recruitment against the vacant permanent sanctioned post and subsequently regularised vide order dated 15.12.1994. The pay scale of the respondent was revised w.e.f. 01.01.1996, however, similarly situated employee namely; Santosh Kumar Jain, who was holding the same post of Glass Blower in the appellant/University was also considered in the revised pay scale and subsequently in compliance of the decision of Executive Council dated 27.09.1997, his pay scale was upgraded, whereas respondent was also performing the same duties and therefore, the respondent made representation to the authority for equal benefit, which was extended to the similarly situated employee i.e. Santosh Kumar Jain and when the representation was not considered, W.P.No.2367/2004 was field by the respondent, which was disposed of on 04.05.2004 with a direction to the University to consider the case of the respondent and if it is found that he is similarly situated to that of Santosh Kumar Jain, then the same benefit be extended to the respondent. Thereafter, the representation was rejected by the authorities and respondent preferred another W.P.No.1204/2005 (s), however, during the pendency of the writ petition, the appellant/University assured the respondent to extend the same benefit and therefore, he withdrew the writ petition after bringing the facts on record.

4. The Executive Council of the University had taken a decision on 13.02.2008 to extend the similar pay scale to the respondent, which was fixed for similarly situated employee i.e. Santosh Kumar Jain. The decision of the Executive Council was put up before the Vice Chancellor and Vice Chancellor approved the recommendation of the Council and consequently, new revised pay fixation was fixed w.e.f. 01.01.2000 by order dated 07.06.2008. After completing the age of superannuation, the respondent stood superannuated on 31.07.2022 and when his case was scrutinized for the purpose of fixation of pension, payment of gratuity, leave encashment and other retiral dues on 15.12.2022, the Registrar revised the pay scale of the respondent contrary to the recommendation of the Executive Council and thereafter passed an order on 13.04.2023 for recovery of the amount paid to the respondent on the basis of earlier pay fixation dated 07.06.2008. The respondent assailed the order dated 13.04.2023 in W.P.No.26585/2023 on the ground that the Registrar has no authority to revise the pay scale which was already approved by the Vice Chancellor in compliance of the order passed by the High Court.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://mphc.gov.in/upload/jabalpur/MPHCJB/2025/WA/422/WA_422_2025_FinalOrder_29-08-2025_digi.pdf)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.