Ashwani Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83778
1 WA-3285-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
th
ON THE 15 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 3285 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010664982026
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prabhat Kumar Shukla - Advocate for appellant.
Smt. Kanak Gaharwar, G.A. for the State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order
dated 20.07.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.
11853/2024, whereby the writ petition challenging the order dated
08.04.2024, affirming the deduction of 5% of his salary by respondent No. 4,
has been dismissed.
2. The appellant contends that the deduction was initiated without
affording him an opportunity of hearing and without conducting any
subsequent performance appraisal, despite the extension of his services from
time to time. He submits that, although his performance for the period from
01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 was initially found unsatisfactory and his services
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:53:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83778
2 WA-3285-2026
were extended for three months to enable improvement, his subsequent

performance was excellent. However, the deduction continued without any
further review of his performance.
3. It is further contended that there are no specific rules authorising
such deduction and that Clause 3(b) of the agreement contemplates a review
of performance after the extension granted for improvement. The appellant
also submits that, despite the Board resolution permitting a 5% salary
reduction in cases of underperformance or provisional extension, no
subsequent evaluation was conducted and no specific order was passed by
the Executive Director/Chief Executive Officer directing such deduction.
Accordingly, the appellant assails the impugned order as arbitrary, illegal
and unsustainable in law and seeks its setting aside.
4. The respondents submit that the appellant was appointed as an
Office Assistant on a contractual basis on 10.10.2017, subject to renewal and
performance appraisal. During his engagement, his performance and conduct
were repeatedly found unsatisfactory, and despite warnings, he failed to
bring about the desired improvement. Consequently, a one-time deduction of
5% from his salary was imposed as an administrative and corrective
measure.
5. It is further contended that, pursuant to the order passed in W.P.
No. 4997/2024, the appellant’s representation was duly considered and
rejected by a reasoned order dated 08.04.2024. The respondents submit that
the appellant was subsequently granted performance-based appraisals of 10%
each, and his salary was increased in the subsequent years, thereby
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:53:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83778
3 WA-3285-2026
demonstrating that the deduction was neither recurring nor punitive in nature.

6. The respondents maintain that the action was taken in the exercise
of administrative discretion to ensure discipline and efficiency and that the
appellant has failed to establish any arbitrariness, violation of natural justice
or breach of contractual terms. Accordingly, the respondents submit that the
impugned action is justified and the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. The learned Single Judge held that the respondents had acted
reasonably in accordance with the terms of the contract and that no
discrimination or violation of any legal right of the appellant was
established. Observing that the salary payable was linked to satisfactory
performance as stipulated in the contract, the learned Single Judge found no
ground for interference and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
the record, we find no merit in the appeal. The letter dated 13.07.2020
indicates that the appellant’s performance appraisal for the period from
01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 was unsatisfactory, whereupon he was granted a
provisional extension of three months to improve his performance, with a
further decision to be taken after review of his performance during the
extended period.
9. The Board resolution authorised a 5% salary reduction in the case
of underperforming employees or employees granted provisional extensions,
or such other appropriate action as may be taken by the Executive
Director/Chief Executive Officer (ED/CEO). Further, Clause 3 of the
employment agreement provides for salary as compensation for services
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:53:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83778
4 WA-3285-2026
rendered and stipulates annual salary review by the employer. Thus, the

contractual arrangement, read with the Board resolution, permitted the
management to assess the appellant’s performance and take appropriate
action in accordance with the applicable terms.
10. The subsequent grant of salary appraisals to the appellant does
not, by itself, render the earlier deduction illegal. In the absence of any
material establishing arbitrariness, discrimination or breach of the contractual
terms, no ground for interference with the order passed by the learned Single
Judge is made out. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
JUDGE
MSP

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:53:17