Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sunetra Kelapure vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26089
1 WP-18190-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 18th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 18190 of 2025
SMT. SUNETRA KELAPURE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nikhil Sharma- Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Shikha Sharma - Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
"i. To, allow the instant Writ Petition filed by the Petitionersby
issuing writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents toextend the
benefit of 7" pay commission with effect from01/01/2016 with
arrears.
ii. li. To, issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to
revise the pay scales of the Petitioners as per the 7" pay mmission
which is being given to similarly situated teachers working in
same department.
iii. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fitand
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly
be passed in favour of the Petitioners, in the Interest of Justice."
2. The issue of applicability of the 7th Pay Commission Pay Scale to
employees working in the institution receiving grant in aid from the State
Government was recently considered by a Division Bench of this Court in
W.A. No. 647/2025 and while dismissing the writ appeal of the State
Government this Court considered the provisions of rules framed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26089
2 WP-18190-2025
State Government so also various provisions of enactment under which the
grant in aid is paid to the teachers of various institutions as well as
amendment to the said Acts carried out w.e.f. 01.04.2000. The Division
Bench has held as under:-
"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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26089
3 WP-18190-2025
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 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.
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26089
4 WP-18190-2025
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26089
5 WP-18190-2025
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
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."
3. The petitioners being similarly situated are entitled for the same
benefit, therefore, it is directed that their cases shall be dealt with in similar
terms mutatis mutandis and be granted the benefit of 7th Pay Commission
Pay Scale within a period of three months from the date of production of
copy of this order.
4. With the aforesaid petition is disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
MISHRA
