Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tika Ram Gohe vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2853
1 WP-41999-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 21st OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 41999 of 2024
TIKA RAM GOHE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Narendra Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A. S. Baghel - GA for the respondents / State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed seeking the following reliefs :-
(i) To, issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to
directing the respondents for given the regular pay scale
of the post of Assistant Teacher since the date of
appointment along with all other consequential benefit
and extend the benefit of Madhukant Yadu Vs. State of
M.P. case, in the interest of justice.
(ii) To allow the arrears of salary increment
promotion and all consequential benefit of the post of
Assistant Teacher, in the interest of justice.
(iii) To grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper
in the circumstances of this case along with the cost of
this writ petition be also awarded.
2. This Court vide order dated 10.1.2025 had directed as under :-
"Counsel appearing for the State on instructions from
the Principal Secretary of the Tribal Development
Department has submitted that they are ready to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2853
2 WP-41999-2024
consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of M.P. Vs. Madhukant Yadu (SLP
No.6892/1993) decided on 03.01.1994.
He further submits that in matters in which
controversy are settled up to Hon'ble Supreme Court,
they will consider the cases of all the employees who
are approaching for seeking redressal of their
grievances in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
orders. Their cases will be considered and a final
decision will be taken up in the matter.
Let the aforesaid statement be placed on affidavit of
the Principal Secretary of the Tribal Development
Department.
Respondents' counsel prays for and is granted three
days time to file affidavit of the Principal Secretary of
the Tribal Development Department pointing out the
fact that they will comply with the orders passed by the
Tribunal in the case of Madhukant Yadu (supra), as the
same is a judgment in rem and will be applicable to all
similarly situated employees. The affidavit should
further clarify the fact that whether they are considering
the cases of all similarly situated employees without
being effected by the fact that whether there is any
Court order or not.
In pursuance to the earlier order dated 09.01.2025,
Shri Rum Singh Dudbey, District Pension Officer,
Betul is present before this Court and tenders his
unconditional apology for violating the orders passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as he has passed the orders
in compliance of the orders passed by the State
Government, coupled with the fact that the State
counsel has given an undertaking on instructions of the
Principal Secretary of the Tribal Development
Department. He is directed to file an affidavit to the
aforesaid effect.
His apology is placed on record.
List the matter on 15.01.2025.
If the affidavit is not filed then the Principal Secretary
of the Tribal Development Department, Bhopal to
remain present before this Court to explain the same."
3. In pursuance to the said order, an affidavit has been filed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2853
3 WP-41999-2024
Principal Secretary of the Department. On perusal of the affidavit, it is seen
that an attempt is being made by the Principal Secretary of the Department to
justify his stand by placing previous circulars issued by the State
Government. It is pointed out that the case of the petitioner was not dealt
with owing to the fact that there was no order passed by the Court.
4. However, the fact remains that once this Court vide order dated
10.1.2025 has already pointed out that the order passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Madhukant Yadu is a judgment in rem as the
legal issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is applicable
to all the similarly situated employees, therefore, the authorities are duty
bound to comply with said order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. Relevant paragraphs of the affidavits are as under :-
"7. The School Education Department had issued an
another order dated 18.10.2017, referring to its earlier
order dated 04.08.2005 (D-1) and extending the benefit
of a regular pay scale from the date of initial
appointment to all teachers working under its
jurisdiction. A copy of the order dated 18.10.2017 is
annexed herewith as Anx. D-3.
8. That, it is most humbly submitted that the
administration and policy matters related to the referred
service conditions are dealt with as a matter of
established policy. In cases where such policies are
declared ultra vires by the Court, necessary
amendments are made following due process and after
obtaining competent sanction.
9. That, the humble deponent further submits that in the
State of Madhya Pradesh, schools are managed by both
the School Education~ Department and the Tribal
Affairs Department , with each department overseeing
schools in their respective jurisdictions. For the sake of
uniformity, policy changes implemented by one
department are generally adopted by the other.
However, in the present case, despite the issuance of
the order by the School Education Department on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2853
4 WP-41999-2024
18.10.2017, similar orders have not yet been issued by
the Tribal Affairs Department due to certain
administrative and procedural delays.
10. That, it is most humbly submitted that the Tribal
Affairs Department has already initiated is in the
process of issuing appropriate orders. This process
involves obtaining competent financial and
administrative similar to those issued by the School
Education Department sanctions, along with the grant
of consequential arrears, which will affect several
teachers across the State. In view of these requirements,
the deponent humbly seeks three months' time to
complete the necessary formalities and comply with the
order of this Hon'ble Court."
6. From perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs it is seen that the reasons
assigned for not considering the case of the petitioner are due to some
administrative and procedural delay. However, no such documents have
been placed on record along with the affidavit to show that even an attempt
has been made by the authorities to initiate the proceeding to comply with
the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as far as the petitioner is
concerned. Under these circumstances, the reasons assigned for delay being
administrative and procedural delay is not acceptable, therefore to that
extent, the affidavit is not accepted by this Court.
7. As far as the submissions made in the affidavit that they are ready
to consider the case of the petitioner and other similarly situated employees
in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Madhukant Yadu (supra) coupled with the fact that the School Education
Department has already issued another circular / order dated 18.10.2017
extending the benefits of a regular pay scale from the date of initial
appointment to all teachers working under its jurisdiction, the authorities are
duty bound to comply with the said circular. This circular was issued way
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2853
5 WP-41999-2024
back in the year 2017. Despite of the same, the authorities have not passed
any order with respect to extending the benefit to the petitioner, the petitioner
was compelled to file this writ petition in the year 2024.
8. Under these circumstances, it is expected that the authorities will
comply with the verdict passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the
circulars issued by them making it applicable to all the similarly situated
employees like the petitioner in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
9. As far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, as an undertaking
is being made by the Principal Secretary of the Department that they will
complete the proceedings within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt
of certified copy of this order.
10. This petition is disposed of directing the authorities to decide the
claim of the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.
11. If the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the
orders passed by this Court are not dealt with properly, then the stern action
shall be taken against the authorities.
12. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
JP
