MP High Court: No Authority Can Decide On Its Own Which Order Is Illegal, Sets Aside Recall Order

The Madhya Pradesh High Court's Gwalior bench has dismissed a state appeal seeking to justify a panchayat officer's decision to unilaterally recall the reinstatement of a Gram Rojgar Sahayak, holding that no authority can decide on its own that an order passed against it is illegal and refuse to comply with it, no matter how questionable that order may appear.

A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla was hearing a writ appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against a single judge's order that had set aside the recall of Arti Sharma's reinstatement as Rojgar Sahayak in Gram Panchayat Kotra, Janpad Panchayat Pahadgarh, in Morena district.

Sharma had originally been removed from service, following which she approached the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena. The Additional Commissioner, by an order dated March 1, 2021, allowed her appeal and directed that she be reinstated. Acting on this direction, the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, Pahadgarh, reinstated her. However, months later, by an order dated August 12, 2021, the same CEO recalled her reinstatement, reasoning that the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the removal of a Gram Rojgar Sahayak in the first place.

Aggrieved by this fresh setback, Sharma challenged the recall order before the High Court. The single judge allowed her petition, holding that even if the CEO genuinely believed the Additional Commissioner's order was passed without jurisdiction, he could not have recalled the reinstatement on his own, having already implemented it once in compliance with that order.

The State, represented by Government Advocate Ms. Smrati Sharma, challenged this before the division bench, arguing that since the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction over appeals concerning the removal of a Gram Rojgar Sahayak, his order was a nullity, and the CEO was therefore well within his rights to refuse compliance.

The bench, however, found this submission unpersuasive. It observed that counsel for the appellant "could not justify the act of CEO in recalling the order of reinstatement on his own without getting the order set aside/recalled from the Court of Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena." Reiterating a settled principle, the court held that no party to a dispute, or third party, can decide for itself which order is legal and refuse compliance on that self-serving assessment.

To buttress this reasoning, the bench relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Robust Hotels Private Limited and Others vs. EIH Limited and Others, where it was held that "it is not open either a party to the lis or to any third party to determine at their own that an order passed by a Court is valid or void," and that anyone considering an order voidable or non est must approach a competent court to have it set aside on available grounds.

Applying this principle, the Gwalior bench concluded that even an order that may ultimately be illegal continues to hold the field until it is formally set aside, and the CEO's only lawful course was to seek a review of the Additional Commissioner's order before the appropriate forum, not to disregard it unilaterally. Since the single judge had committed no error in setting aside the CEO's recall order, the court found no ground warranting interference.

Before ruling on merits, the bench also dealt with the State's application seeking condonation of a 77-day delay in filing the appeal. While noting that the reasons offered by the State reflected a "lethargic attitude," the bench nonetheless condoned the delay, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, before proceeding to hear the appeal on its merits.

With these findings, the division bench dismissed the writ appeal, effectively affirming that Arti Sharma's reinstatement as Rojgar Sahayak stands restored, and that panchayat authorities cannot bypass due process by recalling orders they consider legally infirm without first having them set aside by a competent forum.

Case Title: The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Arti Sharma

Date of Order: September 2, 2026

Bench: Justice G.S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla