Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Prasad Swami vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 February, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5820
1 WP-2943-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 4 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 2943 of 2019
RAJENDRA PRASAD SWAMI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Mohan Tiwari - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Sumit Raghuwanshi - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed assailing the orders dated 06.12.2018 and
01.02.2019 passed by the respondents by which recovery has been ordered with
respect to benefit of Fifth and Sixth Pay Commission which was extended to the
petitioners with effect from the due date.
2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the
order passed by this Court in identical circumstances in the case of Raghuveer
Singh Jhala v. Panchayat and Rural Development Department and others : W. P.
No.19297/2018 order dated 05.03.2019 wherein this Court has not only quashed
the recovery but has also directed for refund of the recovered amount along with
interest. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner is identical to that of
Raghuveer Singh Jhala which reads as under:-
"Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 4.5.2018
and 9.7.2018 by which the CEO, Jila Panchayat, Rajgarh has recovered the amount of
Rs.471811/- which was given by way of extending the benefit of 6th pay commission
w.e.f. 1.1.2006 to 31.3.2013.
Facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed on 4.2.1980 as driver in Janpad
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5820
2 WP-2943-2019
panchayat, Rajgarh. After rendering the service he retired w.e.f. 31.1.2015 upon
attaining the age of superannuation. During his service he was granted the benefit
of various payscales including 6th pay commission. After retirement when the
gratuity was not released, he filed writ petition No.5432/2017. Vide order dated
23.10.2017 the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to Jila Panchayat to
decide the representation. By impugned order, the respondent has calculated the
gratuity amount payable to the petitioner Rs.4,07,480/- but the same has been
adjusted by way of recovery of Rs.4,71,811/- on account of withdrawal of benefit of
6th pay commission in the
light of the circular dated 8.8.2013, hence this petition.
Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of co-ordinate
bench of this court in the case of Ram Kumar Kapoor and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
(W.P.No.2110/2010) and Suryakant Mishra Vs. State of M.P. (W.P.No.6384/2017) in
which this Court has held that employees of panchayat services are also entitled for
the benefit of 6th pay commission at par with the government employees.
After notice the respondent No.2-CEO, Janpad panchayat has filed the reply by
submitting that by order dated 8.8.2013 first time the State Government has directed
panachayats to grant the benefit of 6th pay commission subject to availability of
the fund w.e.f. 1.4.2013, hence the amount which was given to the petitioner prior to
1.4.2013 was without authority, hence the same has rightly been recovered.
Petitioner during his service was granted the benefit of 6th pay commission by
order dated 28.2.2009 w.e.f. 1.1.2006. The Jila panchayat, Rajgarh has passed a
resolution on 10.7.2009 for grant of the benefit of 6th pay commission to the
petitioner and similarly placed persons. The Panchayats are competent to grant any
benefit to its employees by way of resolution.
Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Kapoor Vs. State of
M.P.(WP No. 2111/2010) and Suryakant Mishra Vs. State of M.P.
(W.P.No.6384/2017) has held that employees of Panchayat Mandi corporations are
entitled for the benefit of 6th pay commission at par with the government employees.
It has further been held that once the benefit has been granted to the Panchayat
employees, even the State Government cannot withdraw the same.
Para 6 is reproduced below :
"Mr. P.N. Gupta, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that when there are no resources
available with the State Government, the benefit of 6th Pay Commission
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5820
3 WP-2943-2019
cannot be given to the employees of Janpad Panchayat Kolaras. This
argument of the learned Government Advocate is wholly misconceived
and if the same is accepted, then it will amount to accepting
discrimination between similarly situated employees, which is not
permissible in law. The State cannot discriminate in the matter of
payment of salary between similarly situated employees. If the State
Government has extended the benefit of 6th Pay Commission to all
other employees of the State Government including the employees of
Urban bodies like Municipal Corporation, Nagar Palika, Nagar
Panchayat etc. and employees of Mandi Board and Krishi Upaj Mandi
Samiti, then there is no reason to deny the benefit of pay revision as
per the recommendations of 6th Pay Commission only to the employees
of Janpad panchayat. It may be noted that the Janpad Panchayat Kolaras,
of which the petitioners are the employees,
has already taken a decision in their meeting dated 9th September, 2009
to grant the benefit of 6th Pay Commission to its employees w.e.f. 1st
January 2006 and their said decision is Annx.P/8 (on page 28 of the
Paper Book). Said benefit granted by the Janpad panchayat to its
employees cannot be withdrawn by the State Government and that too,
for no rhyme or reason. There is absolutely no justification put forward
on the part of the respondents to deny the benefit of pay revision as per
the recommendations of 6th Pay commission to the employees of
the Janpad Panchayat including the petitioners. Under the circumstances,
the impugned orders dated 2nd march 2010 and 7th April 2010
(Annx.P/11 and P/12 to the Writ Petition) cannot be sustained and are
hereby set aside. The directions are given to the respondents to restore
the benefit of pay revision as per recommendations of 6th Pay
Commission to the petitioners and pay them the arrears within four
months of receipt of certified copy of this order."
Respondent has withdrawn the benefit only on the ground that State Govt. has
granted approval for extending the benefit of 6th pay commission by order dated
8.8.2013 and for which the State Government shall not release additional fund to
the Panchayat. The state government employees became entitled to get the benefits of
6th pay commission w.e.f. 1.1.2006, therefore if the employees of panchayat are
entitled for the same benefit at par with the state government, then they are certainly
entitled to get benefit w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as well and said benefit had already been given
to the petitioner during his service. The respondent has recovered the said amount
only because they are required to pay the gratuity amount to the petitioner in
compliance with the directions issued by this Court, therefore in view of law
laid down by this court in the case of Ram Kumar Kapoor and Suryakant
Mishra(supra), the impugned order is hereby quashed. The amount so recovered be
returned to the petitioner within a period of 60 days failing which the same shall carry
interest @ 8% per annum. Since the petitioner has been held entitled to get the benefit
of 6th pay commission, therefore the gratuity amount is also liable to be re-calculated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5820
4 WP-2943-2019
on the basis of last wages drawn. This exercise be also concluded within 60 days.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. C.c. as per rules."
4. Counsel appearing for the State by filing a reply made an attempt to counter
the averments made in the petition however, he could not distinguish the judgment
passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Raghuveer Singh Jhala
(supra).
5. Under these circumstances, as the matters are factually identical in nature,
the order passed in the case of Raghuveer Singh Jhala (supra) will also govern the
case of the petitioner.
6. This petition is disposed off in terms of the order passed in the case of
Raghuveer Singh Jhala (supra). The impugned order of recovery dated 06.12.2018
and notice in pursuance to the same issued by the authorities dated 01.02.2019 are
hereby quashed. The recovery if any, made from the petitioner be funded back
within a period of 60 days failing which the same will carry an interest @8% per
annum.
7. With these observations, petition stands disposed off.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
L.Raj
