Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gulab Singh Chandravanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 July, 2025
1 WP-18066-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 11th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 18066 of 2025
GULAB SINGH CHANDRAVANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajendra Kumar Pandey- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri V.P. Tiwari - Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
ORDER
The petitioner was initially appointed in M.P. Oil Seeds Growers
Federation (Tilhan Sangh). He was on deputation to Zila Panchayat Dindori
from 01.04.2000 to 30.06.2010. The petitioner has since retired from service
but he was not granted the benefit of 5th, 6th and 7th Pay Commission Pay
Scales.
2. It is contended that the issue of applicability of 5th, 6th and 7th
Pay Commission Pay Scales has been considered by a coordinate Bench of
this Court in W.P. No. 19633/2023 which in turn is based on earlier
judgment passed by this Court in W.P. No. 680/2009(S) (Dinkar Pratap
Singh Chouhan vs State of M.P. and others) decided on 21.07.2011 and
therefore, the petitioner being similarly situated is entitled to the same
benefits. It is contended that the representation of the petitioner is pending
before the respondents which is placed on record as Annexure P/9.
3. A coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 19633/2023 has
2 WP-18066-2025
passed the following order:-
"Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking direction to the respondents to
grant the benefit of 5th, 6th & 7th Pay Commission.
2. The petitioner was appointed in the Oil Seed Growers federation and vide
order dated 10/01/2006 the respondents have sent the petitioner on deputation
to the Zila Panchayat Tikamgarh on the post of Assistant Project Officer and
vide order dated 04/02/2006,the petitioner was relieved to join at. Zila
Panchayat Tikamgarh and the petitioner submitted his joining before the Zila
Panchayat Tikamgarh on 06/02/2006.
3. Thereafter vide order dated 10/07/2007, the respondent had transferred the
petitioner to the Zila Panchayat Ujjain on the post of Assistant Project Officer
and the petitioner submitted his joining before the Zila Panchayat Ujjain on
23/08/2007. The petitioner after serving the department for 03 decades attained
the age of superannuation and retired on 31/10/2012.
4. The petitioner was paid the salary on the basis of recommendation of 4th
Pay Commission. Petitioners submitted representations to the respondents for
grant of benefit of 5th & 6th Pay Commission. The State Govt. vide Gazette
notification dated 28.2.2009 passed the M.P. Pay Revision Rules, 2009 for
grant of benefit of 6th Pay Commission. When the said benefit was not
extended to the petitioner, he has filed the present petition before this Court.
5. Similarly placed persons appointed in Oil Federation were sent on
deputation to various Government departments and they were granted the
benefit of 5th and 6th pay commission. Later on the state government withdrew
the same which became the subject matter of various writ petitions before this
court. One of the writ petition bearing No. 5680/2009(s) (Dinkar Pratap Singh
Chouhan Vs. state of M.P.) was decided on 21.7.2011 in favour of the
petitioner and thereafter Writ Appeal filed by the State Govt. has been
dismissed and thereafter the SLP No. 31673/2011 has also been dismissed. By
placing reliance over the aforesaid decision, one writ petition filed by
Yashwant Aphle had also been allowed vide order dated 26.8.2013 passed in
W.P.No.7725/2009 and recovery of amount was quashed. The order passed in
the case of Yashwant Aphle (supra) is reproduced as under -
"Petitioner employees of M.P. State Cooperative Oil Seed Growers
Federation on deputation to Zila Panchayat Hoshangabad vide this
petition while seeking quashment of orders dated 24.6.2009 and
11.8.2009; whereby recovery has been effected in respect of certain pay
extended to the petitioner in lieu of the fixation as per Vth Pay
Commission further seeks direction to the respondents to extend the
benefit of Vth Pay Commission.
At the outset it is urged that the issue raised in this petition has been
answered in W.P.No.5680/2009 (s) Dinkar Pratap Singh Chouhan and
another Vs. State of M.P and others decided on 23.3.2011.
The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents
3 WP-18066-2025
to grant the benefit of Vth and VI th Pay Commission. The State
Government aggrieved by said order preferred Writ Appeal No.361/2011
which was dismissed on 27.7.2011.The Division Bench while dismissing
the writ appeal observed:
"4. From the facts of the case it is clear that the respondents employees
were sent on deputation on the terms and conditions fixed by the
Government. Subsequently the General
Administration Department clarified that the respondents employees
shall be entitled the D.A and other allowances at par with the
Government employees. The Government also
sanctioned the post against which respondents employees are working. It
is also a fact that the appellant department M.P. State Cooperative Oil
Seed Growers Federation has become defunct and there is no possibility
to send the respondents employees back to their parent department.
Virtually the respondent employees have been absorbed in their present
post of deputation. In such circumstances, the direction issued by the
learned Single Judge that the respondents employees are entitled the
benefits of 5th and 6th Pay Commission recommendations is in
accordance with law.
5. Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellants/State has submitted that the respondents employees are
entitled salary as per the salary they were receiving in their parent
department. In support of his contention learned Government Advocate
relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
State of M.P and others Vs. Vinod Mohan Shrivastava ILR (2008)MP
1869. However, the aforesaid argument cannot be accepted because the
respondents employees were sent on deputation as per the norms and
conditions fixed by the Government. Apart from this there is no more
the parent department of the respondents employees and the parent
department has become defunct. Hence the respondents employees are
working under the control of the State Government. Hence they are
entitled for the same benefit.
An SLP (Civil) No.31673/2011 preferred there against was dismissed on
15.4.2013. Since the issue raised in this petition is similar to that Dinkar
Pratap Singh Chouhan and another Vs. state of M.P and others (supra)
while quashing the order of recovery dated 2.7.2009 the respondents are
directed to abide by judgment/
decision rendered in Dinkar Pratap Singh Chouhan and another Vs. State
of M.P and others (supra).
The petition is allowed. There shall be no costs."
6. A co-ordinate bench of this court has already held that employees of Oil
Federation during deputation period are entitled for the benefit of 5th and 6th
pay commission. Admittedly, the said benefit was not extended to the
petitioners, therefore, they are entitled for the benefit of 5th & 6th Pay
4 WP-18066-2025
Commission.
5. The Apex Court in the case of Bihar State Beverages Corporation Limited
and others vs. Naresh Kumar Mishra and others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 110
has held as under:
23. Now, so far as the quashing and setting aside the Resolution dated
27-3-2012 by which the Corporation resolved to pay salary to the
employees of the Corporation as is being paid in the parent Board/parent
organization is concerned, it is required to be noted that it is not in
dispute that the respective original writ petitioners are on deputation
from different Boards/organizations. Therefore, if the Resolution dated
27-3-2012 is permitted to be implemented, in that case, there shall be
disparity in the pay scale/salary of the employees of the Corporation
doing the same/similar work. There may be different pay scales/salaries
in the respective parent organizations. However, when they are working
with the Corporation and doing the similar work, they have to be paid
the salary which is paid to other employees doing the same/similar work.
It is not in dispute that the employees working on different posts in the
Corporation are doing the same/similar work. Therefore, the Division
Bench of the High Court has rightly applied the "principle of equal pay
for equal work" and has rightly quashed and set aside the Resolution
dated 27-3-2012. 27. Now, so far as the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court directing the appellant Corporation to grant
pay scale to the respondents herein, original writ petitioners as per the
6th PRC is concerned, it is required to be noted that, as such, the
appellant Corporation itself took a conscious decision in the year 2010 to
grant the benefit of 6th PRC to the employees working with the
Corporation. However, on the advice of the Finance Department that the
Corporation may grant the benefit of 6th PRC to their permanent
employees and not to the employees on deputation, the Corporation
thereafter took a decision not to grant the benefit of the pay scale as per
the 6th PRC. As rightly held by the Division Bench of the High Court,
the advice by the Finance Department was non-application of mind,
inasmuch as so far as the Corporation is concerned, there is not a single
employee appointed by the Corporation on permanent basis and the
entire staff is either on deputation or on contract basis from other
Boards/organizations. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court
has rightly directed the appellant Corporation to grant the pay scale to
the respondent, original writ petitioners as per the 6th PRC so long as
they continue to work with the appellant Corporation and as and when
they are repatriated, in that case, they shall be governed by the pay scale
paid to the employees in the parent Board/organization.
7. Hence the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to extend the benefit
of 5th, 6th & 7th Pay Commission to the petitioner as also to pay the arrears
within a period of 90 days from production of certified copy of this order.
5 WP-18066-2025
C.c. as per rules."
4. The respondents are directed to take note of the representation of
the petitioner placed on record as Annexure P/9 and P/10 and examine the
parity of the petitioner with the petitioner in the aforesaid case. If the
petitioner is found at par then exactly the same benefit shall be extended to
the petitioner and if not found to be at par, then reasons be communicated to
the petitioner.
5. Let the exercise be completed within a period of two months from
the date of production of copy of this order. Petition is Disposed of .
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
MISHRA
