M.P.Industries Inspectors ... vs State Of M.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 3776 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

M.P.Industries Inspectors ... vs State Of M.P. on 12 August, 2025

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

                                                                      1

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                AT G WA L I O R
                                    BEFORE
    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

                   WRIT PETITION No. 3645 of 2006
          M.P.INDUSTRIES INSPECTORS ASSOCIATION,
                           Versus
                  STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
       Shri Sidhharth Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
       Shri M.S. Jadon - GA for the respondents/State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Reserved on                           :      22/07/2025
        Delivered on                          :      12/08/2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This petition having been heard and reserved for orders,
comiing on for pronouncement this day, the Hon'ble Shri Justice
Milind Ramesh Phadke pronounced/passed the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      ORDER

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India has been preferred assailing non grant or sanction of pay scale to

the Industries' Inspectors equal to that of similarly situated persons of

other departments of the State of M.P., who had been granted the said

benefit w.e.f. year 1981 in the light of Brahamswaroop Samiti's report

and further had sought quashment of letter dated 17.02.2006 issued by

the State Government, whereby the claim of the petitioner in the garb

of said Brahamswaroop Samiti's report was refused.

2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner/Association had

preferred the present petition alleging itself to be representing

Inspectors of Industries of the State of M.P. and had preferred the

present petition on behalf of all the Inspectors of the Industries. The

allegations, which are levelled on behalf of petitioner/Association is

that their members have been made to suffer a hostile and

discriminatory treatment in the matter of fixation and payment of

salary to them and this discrimination started in the year 1981 with the

Brahamswaroop Samiti's report. Initially pay scales of the Inspectors

of the Industries were at par with the Assistant Inspectors of pre

Schools, Head Master of Middle Schools and Rangers of Forest

Department and this similarity in pay scale continued till the report of

Pandey Pay Commission (280-480). In the year 1981, the report of

Chaudhary Pay Commission came to be implemented and pay scales

of Inspectors of Industries were settled at Rs.740-1180/- and while

implementing the Chaudhary Pay Commission the pay scales of the

Inspectors of the Industries were fixed at lower side. This resulted in

great hostile discriminatory treatment in the matter of payment of

salary to the members of the petitioner/Association, though, in fact,

the duties of the Inspectors of Industries were of much higher

responsibility as against the Head Master of the Education Department

and Assistant Inspector of the Schools. The Inspectors of Industries

were required to undergo training and various field activities, have to

be attended by them in remote areas of the villages and sometimes,

they were required to be sent on deputation either to the Gramin Vikas

Adhikaran or to several other Institutions or autonomous bodies by the

Government and in those cases, Inspectors of Industries were required

to live in the remote rural areas and if some new Industries were to be

established in the undeveloped area or in the developed area or under

developed area, in those cases also the Inspector of Industries were

required to take great pains and sufferings in the course of establishing

such units and as such, the work of Inspectors of Industries is of much

higher responsibility and looking to such job of Inspectors, their pay

scales were required to be fixed on a higher side to the persons of

similarly situated posts like Head Masters, Assistant Inspectors of

Schools, Ranger in the Forest Department and Statistical Officer and

also the Sub-Engineers in other departments. The pay scale of Sub-

Engineers and the Statistical Officer had been revised and fixed at

Rs.860-1410 in the year 1981, then 1350-2200 in the year 1987, 1600-

2720 in the year 1990. Similarly, the pay scale Statistical Officers,

who were drawing much lesser salary than that of the Inspectors of

Industries, were fixed at a higher side, whereas their only duties were

just of data compilation in the office and they were not required to go

out for field work. This clearly demonstrated that the responsibility of

members of the petitioner/Association were ignored and they were

given lower pay scale and as on date the equivalent cadres are getting

a pay scale of 5500-9000 as per the recommendations of

Brahamswaroop Samiti from the year 1999 but the Inspectors of

Industries are only getting pay scale of Rs.4500-7000, which is a pay

anomaly detrimental to the members of petitioner/Association.

3. Since, no steps were taken by respondents to remove the

discrimination of pay scale, the petitioner filed an application before

the State Administrative Tribunal bearing O.A. No.1378/1997. The

Tribunal vide order dated 21.01.2000 had disposed of the application

in view of the certain averments made by the respondents in their

reply that the matter was pending before a Pay Commission appointed

by the State Government in the year 1997. Since the aforesaid reply

was not as per the record, a review petition by way of MCC

No.472/2003 was filed before this Court since the earst-while SAT

was abolished by that time and it was prayed that the order dated

21.01.2000 passed in O.A. No.1378/1997 be recalled. The said review

petition was disposed of vide order dated 16.03.2004 with a

modification in the order dated 21.01.2000 to the extent that the State

Government would expedite the finalization of the decision to be

taken in accordance with the report of Commission and take a final

call in the matter at the earliest.

4. In-spite of the order of this Court, since no steps were taken by

the respondents, the petitioner filed a contempt petition, which was

registered at No.795/2005. In the said contempt petition, the

respondents filed report of the Commission with service conditions,

revision of pay scales,1999 etc. and on the basis of the said

compliance report the said contempt petition was dismissed observing

that the petitioner, if so advised may seek remedy or challenge the said

discrimination of the report.

5. Prior to the said order, the matter was scrutinized by the

Principal Secretary of the Commerce and Industries Department, State

of Madhya Pradesh. Vide letter dated 03.07.2004, it was consented

that the Inspectors of the Industries can be given the pay scale akin to

the pay scales given to the Forest Rangers and Assistant Accounts

Officers (Department of Planning, Economics and Statistics) and the

said letter was forwarded to the State.

6. In compliance of the order of this Court in M.C.C. No.472/2003

dated 16.03.2004, the petitioner/Association made a representation

before the respondents to seek the remedy. The respondent No.2

agreed with the petitioner's demand and accordingly issued a letter

dated 30.07.2005 but the State of M.P. vide order dated 17.02.2006

refused to grant benefit without assigning any reasons.

7. Thus, contending that the action of respondents in relying on the

report of Brahamswaroop Samiti is totally illegal, discriminatory and

violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and alleging

that the members of petitioner/Association are entitled to get pay scale

from the year 1981 had prayed for quashment of the said order and to

consider the case of the members of petitioner/Association in the light

of letter dated 30.07.2004 issued by Principal Secretary, Accounts

Officers (Department of Planning, Economics and Statistics).

ARGUMENTS

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court

that the action of respondent/State is against the settled principle of

law that State Governments is required to see that equal pay scales are

granted to the similarly situated persons even though they are in

different departments and there should not be any discrimination

between two similarly situated posts with regard to their pay scales but

on some extraneous grounds the committee and even earlier the

Brahamswaroop Samiti has overlooked this aspect and pay scale of the

members of petitioner/Association are disturbed without any reason

and basis.

9. It was further argued that where all the considerations are same

between the employees or the persons holding identical posts, there

cannot be any discrimination in the matter of their pay scales because,

they belong to different departments. As in the present case, the

members of petitioner/Association, who were working in the

Commerce and Industries Department, have been given a lesser pay

than the similarly situated persons of other departments like Forest

Rangers and Sub Engineers etc., thus, there is a clear discrimination of

the members of petitioner/association and the very act of the

respondents/State can be said to be against the principles of equality.

10. It was also argued that the Committee has overlooked the very

work of the petitioners and their roll to play, the nature of their duties

and functions, which included both office and field work and has held

that since they have rather a limited roll to play in promoting the

industrialization of the State, their pay scale should be in tune with

their job responsibility and, therefore, there seems to be no

justification for upgradation of the pay scales of the Inspectors, which

is a total perverse and illegal approach.

11. Learned counsel has further argued that the members of the

petitioner/Association were compared with the Inspectors in the Police

and Excise Departments, which was not the proper consideration, as in

the chart appended to the Brahmaswaroop Samiti's report the

comparison of the Inspectors of the Industries was made with the

Assistant District Education Inspector (Education Department),

Principle, Middle School (Education Department), Sub Engineer

(Personnel Department/कर क व भग), Principal, Rajkiya Vidhya Peeth,

Librarian Engineering College (Higher Education), Artist (Department

of Culture/ससकर व भग), Ranger (Forest Department), Superintendent

(PHE Department), District Small Savings Officer (Finance

Department), Assistant Medical Officer, Homeo (Department of Public

Health), Assistant Statistical Officer (Accounts Department),

Geology / Geophysics / Earth Assistant (Water Resources

Department), as their pay scales initially were similar to the Inspectors

of Industries but since 1981 vide Choudhry Pay Commission, then

Bhora Pay Commission, then Madhya Pradesh Pay Revision Rules,

1990 with effect from 01.01.1996 and lastly, vide Brahamswaroop

Samiti's report 1999, the pay anomaly consistently featured and vide

Bhahamswaroop Samiti though the pay scales of the aforementioned

categories were fixed in between 5500-9000 but that of Inspectors of

the Industries was fixed only at 4500-7000, which is highly

discriminatory.

12. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of

respondent/State that in the light of various decisions of the Apex

Court, that the petition on behalf of petitioner/Association is not

legally maintainable and no writ of mandamus can be issued in favour

of any Association because the grievance is personal in nature but has

been raised by the petitioner/Association, therefore, the relief to all the

employees or the members of the Association cannot be granted. Thus,

the petition is not maintainable.

13. The second objection, which has been raised is that the

Brahmaswaroop Samiti's report was placed before the State

Government in the year 1999, thereafter the present petition has been

filed after a lapse of more than seven years and since the

petitioner/Association has not assigned any reason why they have not

challenged the said report within reasonable time, the petition being

filed belatedly is liable to be dismissed.

14. It has further been argued that since Brahmaswaroop Samiti did

not recommend to enhance pay scales of Inspectors of Industries or

employees and as it is a policy decision of the State Government,

which had been accepted and the said report is not alleged by the

petitioner to be contrary to any constitutional scheme cannot be

interfered in the writ jurisdiction.

15. It was further argued that the scope of judicial review in the

matter of policy decision is very limited and unless the decision is

shown to be contrary to any statutory provision or the constitution, the

Court should not interfere with that and further wisdom and

advisability of the economic policy are ordinarily not amenable to

judicial review unless it can be demonstrated that the policy is

contrary to any statutory provisions of the Constitution. In other

words, it is not for the Courts to consider relative merits of different

economic policies and to consider which is wiser or better one. Thus,

when the Brahmaswaroop Samiti's report, which has already been

accepted by the State Government as a policy decision, in absence of

any material to hold it to be contrary to law is not liable to be

interfered.

16. Lastly, it was submitted that the petitioner is demanding higher

pay scale on the basis of a fact that the employee of other equating

post are being paid/granted higher pay scale and at one point of time

they were getting equal pay to that of the others but in subsequent

revision of pay scales this equation was disturbed but when this aspect

was sent for further scrutiny, it was found that there was no anomaly

in consideration of grant of pay scale to the members of

petitioner/Association, therefore, once the said fact has already been

considered then again agitating the similar ground is of no

consequence and thus, the present petition being devoid of merits is

required to be dismissed.

17. A rejoinder has been filed in the matter on behalf of

petitioner/Association and it has been contended that the

petitioner/Association is a registered body having its registration

No.25365 and since several identical petitions have already been

decided by the Apex Court and this Court filed by the Association, the

present petition is also maintainable. In the said rejoinder it has been

averred that since the litigation is continuing since 05.10.1997, there is

no delay in filing the present petition and thus, it cannot be said that

the petition is barred by limitation.

18. Further, it is averred that the present petition has not been filed

against any policy decision of the State but the question involved

herein is that the report of Brahamswaroop Samiti challenged by the

petitioner/Association is arbitrary, unreasonable and is based on no

material and the said Samiti had not functioned as per the notification

dated 28.08.1997 issued by GAD and even the Samiti had not

considered the recommendations as directed by the Govt. of M.P.

through Director, Department of Commerce and Industries, Bhopal

dated 08.04.1998 and no opportunity of personal hearing was given to

the petitioner/Association prior to publishing the report of the Samiti

neither any grievance of petitioner/Association was considered by the

Samiti, hence the report of Brahamswaroop Samiti being violative of

the Constitutional mandate cannot be sustained in the eyes of law,

therefore, the present petition is very well maintainable.

19. It has also been averred therein that there is a discriminatory

treatment with the members of petitioner/Association, as is evident

from the record that at one stage Industries Inspector/Survey

Inspectors of Industries department were equated to Sub-Engineers

and Forest Rangers but later on the subsequent revision of pay was

disturbed, which is in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution.

20. An additional return has been filed on behalf of State, wherein it

has been averred that merely registration of a body will not create any

right to file petition to petitioner/Association, therefore, petition is not

legally maintainable. Again it is reiterated that the challenge to the

Brahamswaroop Samiti has been made in the year 2006 after lapse of

more than seven years and it was denied that there was a continuity of

litigation since 05.10.1997, therefore, petition was within limitation.

21. Further it was averred that so far as giving opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner/Association was concerned, the demand of

the petitioner/Association in the guise of memorandum was placed

before the Committee headed by the Chief Secretary before passing of

the order dated 17.02.2006 (Annexure P/2), thus, the said contention is

wholly misconceived and as the Committee has considered the cases

of the category of persons on the basis of recommendations and

factual facet, therefore, the entire contention in this regard is spurious

and against the record and as the very function of the Committee was

in accordance of notification dated 28.06.1997, hence the contention

of the petitioner/Association is baseless.

22. Lastly, it has been averred that since a policy decision has been

taken by the State Government, it cannot be interfered in absence of

any violation of the statutory Rules or the Constitutional mandate by

invoking powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus

had prayed for dismissal of the petition.

23. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

24. So far as the question of maintainability of the present petition

raised on behalf of Respondent/State in the light of various decisions

of the Apex Court, one of them being in the matter of Mohinder

Kumar Gupta (supra) is concerned, this Court deems it necessary to

address the said issue first as to whether the writ petition filed by the

Association is maintainable or not ?

25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of State of Orissa vs.

Ram Chandra Dev & Other reported in AIR 1964 SC 685, Gadde

Venkateswara Rao vs. Government of Andra Pradesh reported in

AIR 1966 SC 828, Vinoy Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

reported in AIR 2001 SC 1739 has held that the relief under Article

226 of the Constitution of India is based on the existence of a right in

favour of the person and the exception is given only in the matters of

habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest and even

assuming that the members of an association are affected by the act of

the respondents, for the purpose of enforcing the right of the members,

the writ petition at the instance of Association is not maintainable.

26. The Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held that unless the

person is affected personally, he cannot file the writ or the writ cannot

be filed by an Association to indicate the rights of its members. It is

only when the fundamental rights of a citizen guaranteed under Article

19 of the Constitution of India is affected, he can invoke the

jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

but admittedly, the petitioner is not a citizen and it cannot claim itself

to be a person, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner association

according to this Court is not maintainable on this ground.

27. In one of its decision in the matter of Steel Authority of India

Ltd. vs. S.U.T.N.I. Sangam & Others reported in 2009 (16) SCC 1,

the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Association can file petition

representing its members having regard to the facts of that case. In that

case, lands of poor agriculturists were acquired and the cause of the

owners of the land was purported to have been espoused by

Association. The persons whose lands were acquired were poor and

illiterate and they were not aware of their rights. In such

circumstances, the case and having regard to the person interested in

Section 3(b), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Association can file

a writ petition representing its members, but it could not have filed any

application in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,

therefore, the aforesaid judgment also cannot come to the rescue of the

present petitioner.

28. Similarly in para 62 of the judgment in the matter of Akhil

Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari ... vs Union Of India And Ors

reported in (1981)1 SCC 246; it has been held that unrecognised

association can file writ petition having regards to the facts of the case.

The facts in that case were that ten directives were issued by the

Railway Board, which disclosed 'benign discrimination' in favour of

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and with a challenge by the

petitioners as 'reverse discrimination', gross discrimination was

alleged in the several Circulars of the Railway Board and in that

context it was held that the writ petition filed by the unrecognised

association is maintainable, as discrimination was focused in that writ

petition, which is not the case herein.

29. Therefore, having regard to the various judgments of the

Hon'ble Apex Court wherein it has been held that when the

fundamental rights of a person is affected, he can maintain writ

petition but the writ petition filed at the instance of the association

representing that the fundamental rights of its members are affected

cannot be said to be maintainable, thus, this Court is of the view that

the present petition is not maintainable.

30. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed

being not maintainable.

31. As this Court has dismissed the present petition on the ground

of its maintainability, the merits of the matter are not gone into.

However, individual members if aggrieved can pursue their respective

remedies before appropriate forum.

32. The judgments cited by counsel for the petitioners since are

based on some different facts are not applicable to the present matter.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE neetu NEETU

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,

SHASH 2.5.4.20=36b486bb0d381b950e435ec 09e066bc6b58cb947c1474b7dc349a1 cf27eaa2ce, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=E60A9BBFC39E0EE500E

ANK AADE1E0B3B8565CB3A7DC9F5CD048 197DF0FF3149AE58, cn=NEETU SHASHANK Date: 2025.08.12 18:05:45 +05'30'