Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ashok Kumar Gupta on 7 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16856
1 WA-647-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 7 th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 647 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA
Appearance:
Shri Anubhav Jain - Government Advocate for the Respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Chief Justice
The present appeal has been filed by the State Govt. challenging the
Order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge
has allowed payment of salaries as per 7th Pay Commission
recommendations to an employee working in a College receiving grant-in-
aid from the State Govt.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has pressed the appeal relying on
the case of Balco Employees Union BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) Vs.
Union of India reported in 2002 2 SCC 333 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed as under:-
"93. Wisdom and advisability of economic policies are
ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless it can be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16856
2 WA-647-2025
demonstrated that the policy is contrary to any statutory provision
or the Constitution. In other words, it is not for the courts to
consider relative merits of different economic policies and
consider whether a wiser or better one can be evolved. For testing
the correctness of a policy, the appropriate forum is Parliament
and not the courts. Here the policy was tested and the
motion defeated in the Lok Sabha on 01/03/2001.
98. In the case of a policy decision on economic matters, the
courts should be very circumspect in conducting any enquiry or
investigation and must be most reluctant to impugn the judgment
of the experts who may have arrived at a conclusion unless the
court is satisfied that there is illegality in the decision itself."
3. He also relied upon the case of Directorate of Film Festivals v.
Gaurav Ashwin Jain reported in (2007) 4SCC 737 wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"16. The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now
well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate
Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and
appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the
executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to
formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy
of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental
rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the
Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly
arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground
that itis erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser
alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom
or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review."
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that
in view of the judgments cited above, the benefit of extension of pay scale or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16856
3 WA-647-2025
pay revision is exclusively in the domain of policy maker.
5. In the present case, the State Govt. has not taken any decision with
regard to the extension of 7th Pay Commission benefits to the employees of
aided non Government Institution.
6. Upon considering the arguments of the appellant/State Govt. as
also the Rule position applicable in the present case, it is appropriate to
mention here that the grant-in- aid to private educational institutions is
granted under Madhya Pradesh Ashashkiya Shikshan Sanstha Adhyapakon
Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sanday) Adhiniyam, 1978 which
has been extensively amended by the State Govt. by Amendment Act of
2000 made applicable w.e.f.01.04.2000. By the said amendment, the State
Govt. decided to curtail the Grant-in-aid in phased manner. However, the
amendment was declared ultra vires by a Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Dr. Sharique A Ali Vs. State of M.P. and Others reported in 2002 1
MPHT 315. But the validity of the said amendment was upheld by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Sharique A Ali
reported in 2020 20 SCC 450. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the
amendment shall not be applicable to those employees who were appointed
before promulgation of the amendment Act i.e, prior to 31.03.2000.
7. The respondent in the present case is appointed prior to 31.03.2000
and therefore, the unamended Adhiniyam of 1978 as well as the Rules
framed thereunder would apply to the present respondent. Though, the said
Rules have been replaced by new set of Rules in terms of the amendment
carried out in the Act w.e.f.01.04.2000.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16856
4 WA-647-2025
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharique A Ali (supra) also
upheld the entitlement of the teachers and non teaching staff working in
private educational institutions to be entitled for 5th and 6th Pay
Commission which was applicable till that time because the said judgment,
though reported in the year 2020 but was delivered on 07.01.2014.
Thereafter, 7th Pay Commission recommendations have been received by
the State and accepted by the State Govt. for its staff and undisputedly, the
7th Pay Commission recommendations are applicable to the Colleges run by
the State Govt. and all the teaching and non-teaching staff are being paid as
per 7th Pay Commission recommendations as accepted by the State Govt.
9. The State Govt. had framed Rules for Grant-in-aid to non
Government Educational Institutions known as Revised Rules for Grant-in-
aid to non-Government Educational Institutions in Madhya Pradesh which
were in terms of the unamended Act. As per Rule 1 (ii) of the said Rules, the
said Rules apply to grant receiving institutions such as Colleges, Higher
Secondary Schools, Teachers Training Institutions, Sanskrit Institutions,
Institutions for Blind and Deaf, etc.
10. Rule 1 (ii) is as under:-
"These rules shall apply to grant receiving institutions such as
Colleges, Higher Secondary Schools, Middle Schools, Primary
Schools and Special Institutions like Pre-primary Schools, Balak
Mandirs, Teachers Training Institutions, Music and Art
Institutions, Institutions for study of Sanskrit and oriental
languages, Institutions for Blind and deaf and such other
institutions as are recognised as special institutions by
Government."
11. Further as per Rule 33(i), a right has been created in favour of the
Teachers and other employees that their pay scales shall be in accordance
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16856
5 WA-647-2025
with those sanctioned for corresponding categories of employees in Govt.
educational institutions.
12. Rule 33(i) is as under:-
"The scales of pay of the teachers including the Head of
the Institution, and other employees of an educational
institution which is in receipt of Government grant shall
be in accordance with those sanctioned for the
corresponding categories of employees in Government
educational institutions."
13. The applicability of Rule 33 (i) of the Grant-in-aid Rule quoted
supra have also been considered earlier by this Court in the case of Suresh
Kumar Dwivedi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in 1993
MPLJ 663 when the State Govt. denied parity of 4th Pay Commission Pay
Scales to employees and Teachers in aided Institutions in the State and the
Division Bench had issued a Writ of Mandamus holding that such teachers
are entitled to revised fixation in 4th Pay Commission pay scales
w.e.f.01.01.1989.
14. The aforesaid Rules do apply to the petitioner as he is an appointee
prior to 01.04.2000 and therefore, he is entitled to a protection under Rule 33
(i). The State cannot violate the Rules framed by itself and then take shelter
of the same being a policy matter because no policy can be framed by the
State contrary to its own Rules and there cannot be any other example of
arbitrariness and illegality in the policy, once it is contrary to the Rules
framed by the State itself.
15. In view of the above, we do not find any perversity or error in the
impugned Order passed by the Learned Single Judge. The petitioner is held
entitled to receive salary in accordance with 7th Pay Commission
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16856
6 WA-647-2025
recommendations w.e.f.01.01.2016 on same scale and subject to same
benefits as are being granted to corresponding category of
employees/teachers in Govt. run institutions.
16. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is dismissed.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) (VIVEK JAIN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
veni
