Kishan Pilley vs Mr. Iqbal Singh Bains Chief Secretary
2025 Latest Caselaw 5957 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Kishan Pilley vs Mr. Iqbal Singh Bains Chief Secretary on 24 March, 2025

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

                                                                1                               CONC-3350-2018
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT JABALPUR
                                                       CONC No. 3350 of 2018
                               (KISHAN PILLEY AND OTHERS Vs MR. IQBAL SINGH BAINS CHIEF SECRETARY AND OTHERS )



                           Dated : 24-03-2025
                                 Shri Naman Nagrath, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Himanshu
                           Mishra, Advocate for petitioners.
                                 Shri Prashant Singh, Advocate General assisted by Shri Amit Seth,
                           Additional Advocate General for respondents.

Shri Anurag Jain, Principal Secretary of the State, through video conferencing.

Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Senior Advocate for petitioners submits that vide order dated 05.09.2019, Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court had recorded certain facts and has directed the authorities of the State to take the matter and decide it.

2. Reading from para 12, it is submitted that following directions were issued by the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench :-

"12. It is to observe here that the objections raised by the State Government regarding scales of pay not commensurate to the

Shetty Pay Commission or disparity with the employees of the State Government with the High Court are wholly irrelevant because recommendations of the Shetty Pay Commission applies to the employees of the District Court not to the employees of the High Court and if the Chief Justice proposes pay scales and allowances in the exercise of powers under Article 229 of the Constitution of

2 CONC-3350-2018 India, its approval by Hon'ble the Governor is required, none else. In case, the State Government opposes and raises the objections, it must be genuine and cannot be turned down by in-genuine objections. So far as various other objections with respect to nomenclature, additional expenditure are concerned, which are in the correspondences of the State Government, are wholly irrelevant and it is not in the domain of the State Government to raise those objections as observed above. The only relevant objection raised by the State Government is vide letter dated 26.08.2017 wherein the Government has requested to the Registrar General to make amendment in the Rules of 1996 proposing the scales of pay. The said objection has not been duly dealt with by the Registry, although the recourse required was

to make amendment by way of upgradation of the scales of pay in rules, upon study of the prevalent upgradation made the High Court of Delhi, High Court of Allahabad, High Court of Punjab and Haryana, High Court of Bombay, High Court of Meghalaya, High Court of Chhattisgarh, High Court of Karnataka, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, High Court of Rajasthan, High Court of Sikkim and High Court of Gauhati."

3. Thus, it is pointed out that this order is being violated virtually. Thereafter, it is submitted that vide order dated 22.05.2024, Hon'ble Division Bench was of the opinion that if the orders of the High Court are not complied with, then the whole Cabinet will be in contempt. Thereafter, various proceedings have undertaken, but orders of the High Court have not

3 CONC-3350-2018 been complied with. However, Shri Nagrath admits that suggestion of cabinet being taken up in contempt is preposterous and cannot be taken to any logical end.

4. It is submitted that the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice are binding on the State and in support of this contention, provisions contained in Article 229 (1) of the Constitution of India are read over.

5. Shri Prashant Singh, learned Advocate General for the State, in his turn, submits that original order is dated 28.04.2017, passed in writ Petition No.7058/2016. It is submitted that in the original order passed by the Division Bench of this High Court in paragraph 22, noted as under :-

"22. So far as relief in regard to grant of higher pay scale and allowances are concerned, in view of the principle of law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the matter of State of U.P. and another vs C.L. Agrawal and another reported in (1997) 5 SCC 1 , this Court could not issue any direction for grant of pay scale. However, keeping in view the fact that the matter of pay scale and allowances of the employees of the High Court is pending before the State Government since 27.6.2015, the respondents are directed to finalize the same within a period of four months. While considering the recommendations, the State shall take into consideration the principle of law laid down by the apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and another (supra)".

6. Thus, it is submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court in

original order dated 28.04.2017, had only directed the State and it was

4 CONC-3350-2018 expected of the State to consider and decide in terms of the recommendations made by the High Court, which were pending before the State Government since 27.06.2015. It is pointed out that there is no further direction in this regard.

7 . Referring to para 18 of the said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is pointed out that Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 18, in case of C.L.Agrawal, has noted as under :-

"18. There is a passage in the judgment in the case of Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association that, in the context of the matters before us, deserves to be set out. We endorse what is observed and commend it to the States so that they may deal with proposals made by their Chief Justices with due deference and respect.

"57. So far as the Supreme Court and the High Courts are concerned, the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, are empowered to frame rules subject to this that when the rules are framed by the Chief Justice of India or by the Chief Justice of the High Court relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, the approval of the President of India or the Governor, as the case may be, is required. It is apparent that the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the High Court have been placed at a higher level in regard to the framing of rules containing the conditions of service. It is true that the President of India cannot be compelled to grant approval to the rules framed by the Chief Justice of India relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, but it is equally true that

5 CONC-3350-2018 when such rules have been framed by a very high dignitary of the State, it should be looked upon with respect and unless there is very good reason not to grant approval, the approval should always be granted. If the President of India is of the view that the approval cannot be granted, he cannot straightway refuse to grant such approval, but before doing so, there must be exchange of thoughts between the President of India and the Chief Justice of India."

8. Thus, it is submitted that discretion of the Governor, which is to be read herein in place of the President of India, cannot be taken away and only requirement of law is that instead of straightaway refusing to grant such approval, there must be exchange of thoughts between the President of India (herein it will be Governor of Madhya Pradesh) and the Chief Justice of India (herein in this case it will be Chief Justice of High Court of Madhya Pradesh).

9. It is further submitted that matter was placed before the Cabinet on 04.01.2022 and the Cabinet took a decision that there was a fundamental difficulty in accepting the recommendations of the Chief Justice, because the sensitivity of work attached to the employees of the State Government, Secretriat of the Governor and the Secretriat of the Legislative Assembly will effect the relativity of the existence of pay scales in consonance with the work carried out y the officers aforesaid. It is mentioned that, that will pose serious problems to the State Government.

10. Thereafter, it is mentioned that it be advised to His Excellency Governor that under the present situation in terms of the provisions

6 CONC-3350-2018 contained in Clause (2) of Article 229 of the Constitution of India, there is difficulty in accepting the proposed pay scales. Thereafter, it is further mentioned that the Law Department shall forward the recommendations as may be accepted by the Governor.

11. Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Senior Advocate, thereafter, points out that vide order dated 10.01.2022, Advocate General had withdrawn the compliance report dated 07.01.2022 along with which, recommendations of the Cabinet dated 04.01.2022 were placed before the High Court.

12. It is, therefore, submitted that since decision dated 04.01.2022, was withdrawn. Thereafter, on 22.05.2024, State had again sought time. Reading from the order sheet dated 22.05.2024, it is pointed out that Hon'ble Division Bench had observed that "on hearing learned counsel and considering the situation, we deem it just and necessary to grant one more opportunity to the State in order to ensure compliance of the order dated 28.04.2017, passed in Writ Petition No.7058/2016."

13. Thereafter, vide order dated 04.07.2024, another Division Bench of this High Court headed by the Acting Chief Justice, observed as under :-

"5.3 From the above, it is evident that unless there are very strong and cogent reasons for not accepting the recommendations made by the Chief Justice of this Court, the State ordinarily accepts the same by notifying upgradation of pay-scales as recommended by Chief Justice in

Schedule-I, sent vide D.O. No.68/21 dated 04.02.2021. Pertinently, if there is reasonable justification for revision/upgradation of pay-scale proposed by Chief Justice of High Court, then the obstacle of

7 CONC-3350-2018 insufficiency of funds cannot come in way of the State from accepting the recommendation.

5.4 If State continues to sit over the matter for any further period of time, it would create a situation where judiciary and executive would be at loggerheads which is not in the interest of administration of justice.

6. However, considering the fact that the Chief Secretary Smt. Veera Rana has extended the reasons of Legislative Assembly being in Session, this Court, as a matter of last indulgence, grants further three weeks time to the State to resolve the stalemate, to avoid confrontation with the judiciary.

7. Accordingly, let the case be taken up on 31.07.2024 for either reporting compliance by the State or showing cause as to why coercive steps be not taken against respondent/contemner."

14. Thus, it is submitted that again in terms of the aforesaid order dated 04.07.2024, matter was placed before the Cabinet on 23.07.2024.

15. It is submitted that in its meeting dated 23.07.2024, the Cabinet reiterated its decision dated 04.01.2022 and it also asked the State to place before the High Court decisions/deliberations of the Committee in the light of the order dated 31.01.2022.

16. It is pointed out that the report of the Committee is enclosed vide I.A.No.6314/2022, an application for taking documents on record and on internal page 19 of this report in para 12, it is evident that four member Committee consisting of two representatives of the State Government and

8 CONC-3350-2018 the Registrar General along with the Principal Secretary of the Legislative Department would arrive at a consensus, as a result of which, deliberations remained inconclusive. Thus, it is submitted that since two judicial officers recorded their descent, no final decision could be taken in this regard.

17. Shri Nagrath, learned Senior Advocate, after submissions made by Shri Prashant Singh, learned Advocate General, are concludedsubmits that the grounds which have been taken in regard to discrimination between two categories of the officials of the State was considered and rejected by Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 05.09.2019 and SLP filed against that order was dismissed by the Apex Court.

18. Shri Prashant Singh, learned Advocate General, submits that in terms of the order dated 28.04.2017, it is evident that Hon'ble Division Bench itself had noted that there cannot be a binding force on the State to accept the recommendations in terms of the provisions contained in Clause (2) of Article 229 of the Constitution of India, but seeks time to place on record precise which was placed before the Cabinet for its approval, because that will reveal as to whether the Chief Secretary had complied with the orders of the Division Bench dated 16.01.2025, whereby, Division Bench had directed the Chief Secretary to place the matter before the Cabinet as early as possible, preferably in the next Cabinet meeting, along with the orders passed by this Court from time to time, particularly the order dated 04.07.2024. Shri Singh, learned Advocate General, submits that in fact Hon'ble Division Bench while recording its order dated 05.09.2019, in para 6 and 17, held as under :-

9 CONC-3350-2018 "6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties have been heard at length. After hearing and on perusal of the directions issued by this Court, it is apparent that this Court was of the view that in the matter of grant of higher pay scale and allowances, positive directions cannot be issued in the light of the judgment of C.L. Agrawal (supra). The Court has further observed that this matter regarding grant of the pay scales to the employees of the High Court may be decided by the State Government to which the letter dated 27.06.2015 was sent by the High Court. The Court issued the directions to finalize the same within a period of four months.

The Court observed that while considering the recommendations, the State Government shall take into consideration the principle of law and the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of C.L. Agrawal (supra).

17. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, some compliance are still to be made, however, purging to any of the nonapplicant in this case is unjustified to reach a logical conclusion to carry out the objective and directions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and another vs. S.B. Vohra and others reported in (2004) 2 SCC 150 and State of U.P. and another vs. C.L. Agrawal and another reported in (1997) 5 SCC 1 . In such circumstances, we adjourn this case for a period of six months and during the said period, compliance of following directions shall be made by the non-applicants :-

10 CONC-3350-2018 (1) Petitioners/employees shall submit a detailed representation within two weeks claiming upgradation of the pay scales and allowances at par to the employees of other High Courts in the light of the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and another vs. S.B. Vohra and others reported in (2004) 2 SCC 150 and State of U.P. and another vs. C.L. Agrawal and another reported in 15 (1997) 5 SCC 1 and the letter of Government of India, Ministry of Law & Justice (Department of Justice) dated 18.5.2004 regarding the amendment in the "The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Services (Recruitment, General Conditions of Services, Conduct, Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2017" for the reasons so mentioned therein.

(2) On receiving such representation within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, it shall be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice by the Registrar General for amendment in "The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Services (Recruitment, General Conditions of Services, Conduct, Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2017" as proposed by the State Government regarding upgradation of the scales of pay and allowances in the respective Schedules.

(3) Thereafter, the Committee may be requested for the amendment in the upgradation of pay scales comparing the grant of upgradation for pay scales and allowances by the other High Courts and submit a proposal for amendment in "The High Court of Madhya

11 CONC-3350-2018 Pradesh Services (Recruitment, General Conditions of Services, Conduct, Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2017" for notification by the State Government as per the approval of Hon'ble the Governor within the period of three months.

(4) On receiving the said proposal by the Registry under the directions of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, it be notified in a Gazette by the Government within one month.

(5) After notification, the benefits of the upgraded pay scales and allowances as proposed by way of an amendment shall be payable to the employees with retrospective date or as proposed in the amendment and notified in the Schedule of the Rules."

19. On perusal of the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is evident that SLP was dismissed on account of refusal of the Hon'ble Apex Court to condone the delay. There was delay of 91 days which was found to be not properly explained.

20. Now, the issue which will emerge and which is required to be answered by Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Senior Advocate, is that whether dismissal of SLP on the ground of limitation will be treated to be a decision on merits, or the order is still open to be assessed by the Court in its contempt jurisdiction.

21. Thus, it is pointed out reading para 17.3, that whatever is to be done, is to be done subject to the approval of the Governor. Thus, it is submitted that Governor's approval is the sine qua non for taking a decision in regard to implementation of order dated 28.04.2017.

12 CONC-3350-2018

22. Shri Prashant Singh, learned Advocate General assisted by Shri Amit Seth, learned Additional Advocate General and Shri Anurag Jain, Chief Secretary of the State, available to this Court, through video conferencing prays for and are granted seven days time to produce precis.

In view of the aforesaid submissions made by rival parties, list this case on 08.04.2025, at 02:30 p.m.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE

A.Praj.