Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Usha Tiwari vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 October, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50161
1 WP-38223-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 6 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 38223 of 2025
SMT. USHA TIWARI
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Kumar Patel - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ in the
nature of Mandamus to direct to the respondents to
consider the application of petitioner Annexure P/6
dated 31/08/2025 in stipulated time and pass the order
in the light of judgement passed by this Hon'ble Court
(Annexure P-7 and P-8) for counting service period
from 17/07/1998 for Retiral benefit (Pension) and issue
PPO.
(ii) Cost of the application with any other relief/s
which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be
granted in favour of the Petitioner."
2. The case of the petitioner is that she was initially appointed under
Urban Local Body i.e. Nagar Palika, Devendra Nagar Panna as Shiksha
Karmi in the year 1998 and thereafter she was absorbed in Varishtha
Adhyapak Cadre and later on she was taken under regular cadre in
accordance with statutory Rules in the year 2018 under the State
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50161
2 WP-38223-2025
Government. She seek benefits of pension, gratuity and other consequential
benefits.
3. The aforesaid issue has been decided in case of Shiksha Karmis
appointed initially by urban local bodies, in W.A. No. 2358/2024 by a
Division Bench at Indore in the following terms:-
"The appellant / Nagar Palika Parishad, Mandsaur has
filed the present writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the
Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya
Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 challenging the
order dated 04.12.2023 passed by the Writ Court,
whereby W.P. No.1753 of 2013 has been allowed.
02. Facts of the case are that respondents No.1 to 3 /
writ petitioners were appointed to the post of
Shikshakarmi, Grade - I by an order dated 08.09.1998
and 24.02.1999 issued by the Chief Municipal Officer,
Nagar Palika Parishad, Mandsaur. At that time, the
appointment and service condition of the writ
petitioners were governed under the provisions of
Madhya Pradesh Nagarpalik Shiksha Karmi (Bharti
Tatha Seva Sharten) Niyam, 1998 (in short 'the Rules of
1998').
03. Initially, the writ petitioners were appointed in the
pay-scale of Rs.1000-30-1600 and after completion of
three years of probation period, they were regularized
and appointed in the regular pay-scale of Nagarpalika
(Municipality), as per Rule 7 of the Rules of 1998. By
order dated 12.12.2001 and 29.07.2002, Nagarpalika
regularized the services of the writ petitioners. The
grievance of the writ petitioners was that despite
completing 12 years of service, they were not given the
regular pay-scale of the post applicable to the
Nagarpalika Teacher. With effect from 01.04.2007, the
writ petitioners were given the pay-scale of Rs.4000-
8000, but they claimed the pay-scale of Rs.5000-8500
under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1998.
04. According to the writ petitioners, the Nagarpalika
has denied the benefits of FPF, PPF, House Rent
Allowance, Employees Insurance Scheme, Medical
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50161
3 WP-38223-2025
Facilities and other benefits at par available with the
employees of Nagarpalika. The writ petitioners were
compelled to become member of Contributory Pension
Plan which came into force in the year 2005, but the
writ petitioners have been working since 1998/1999 and
are entitled to get the benefit of regular pension under
the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
1976.
05. The writ petitioners approached this Court by way
of W.P. Nos.4365 of 2011(s), 4367 of 2011(s) and 4368
of 2011(s) which were disposed of with a direction to
the respondents to consider the representation. Vide
order dated 17.10.2012, the respondent / Nagarpalika
rejected the representation denying the benefit of
service of the Municipalities at par with its employees.
The writ petitioners again approached this Court by way
of W.P. No.1753 of 2013(s) seeking following reliefs.
(1) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue Writ of Certiorari and quash
the order dated 17-10-12 (Annexure P-11),
issued by respondent no.4 and direct the
respondent, to allow the Pay Scale applicable
to employees of the Nagar Palika i.e. 50500-
8000 to the petitioner from the date of their
entitlement as per the terms of the
appointment order, and pay the arrears of
salary with interest to them;
(2) That Hon'ble Court pleased to further
direct to the respondent, to allow all the
service benefit applicable to the employees of
the Nagar Palika to the Petitioners, like
benefit of GPF, PPF, House Rent Allowance,
benefit of Employees Insurance Scheme, etc.
and also the benefit of the Madhya Pradesh
Nagar Palika (Pension) Rules, 1980;
(3) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to direct the respondent No.5, not to
deduct any amount from the salary of the
petitioners towards the Contributory Pension
Plan, and refund all the amount deducted
from the salary under the said plan with
interest;
(4) To allow this writ petition with cost;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50161
4 WP-38223-2025
(5) To pass such other writ or order which
this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case to grant in favour
of the petitioners.
06. During the pendency of the writ
petitions, the State Government framed a
Rule know as ''Nagreeya Nikay Adhyapak
Samvarg (Employee & Service Conditions)
Rules, 2008 (in short 'the Rules of 2008) and
came into force w.e.f. 17.09.2008. The
Shikshakarmis appointed by the Municipal
Corporation and Municipal Council under the
Rules of 1998 were absorbed under the Rules
of 2008 on the post of Varishth Adhyapak,
Adhyapak and Sahayak Adhyapak as the case
may be.
07. The respondents filed a reply in the writ
petition denying the benefit claimed by the
writ petitioners.
08. Vide order dated 04.12.2023, the Writ
Court has allowed the writ petition, hence,
the present writ appeal is filed before this
Court.
09. Shri Kamlesh Mandloi, learned counsel
for the appellant submits that the benefits
under the Rules of 1998 have already been
given to the writ petitioners. The Writ Court
did not consider the applicability of Rules of
2008. The writ petitioners are not the regular
employee of the Municipality. Under the
Rules of 2008, in fact they are an employee
of the State Government. In support of the
aforesaid contentions, learned counsel has
placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by
the Apex Court in the case of Dr. K.M.
Sharma & Others v/s The State of
Chhatisgarh & Others (Civil Appeal No.3030
of 2022) reported in (2022) 11 SCC 436 , in
which the Apex Court has held that
Municipal Teachers and Shikshakarmis are
appointed under different rules having
different methods of selection and
recruitment, Shikshakarmis cannot claim
parity in pay-scale with Municipal Teachers
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50161
5 WP-38223-2025
on the principle of equal pay and equal work.
Shikshakarmis appointed under the Rules of
1998 are entitled to pay-scale under the Rules
of 1998 only. Therefore, the order passed by
the Writ Court may kindly be set aside.
Heard.
10. It is not in dispute that the writ
petitioners were appointed by the Chief
Municipal Officer, Nagarpalika Parishad,
Mandsaur under the provision of the Rules of
1998. Definition 2(b) of the Rules of 1998 is
reproduced below:-
"2(b). ''Appointing Authority'' in relation to
''Adhyapak Samvarg'' means Appointing
Authority as specified under Section 58 of
the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation
Act, 1956 in case of Municipal Corporation
and under Section 94 of the Madhya Pradesh
Municipalities Act, 1961 in case of
Municipality and Nagar Panchayat
(Schedule)."
11. It is clear from the aforesaid provision
of law that the Appointing Authority means
the Appointing Authority as specified under
Section 58 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal
Corporation, Act, 1956 and under Section 94
of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act,
1961 in case of Municipality and Nagar
Pahchayat.
12. Section 94 of the Municipalities Act,
1961 is reproduced below:-
''94. Appointment of staff.
(1) Every Council having an annual income
of five lakhs of rupees or more shall, subject
to rules framed under Section 95, appoint a
Revenue Officer and an Accounts Officer and
may appoint such other officers and servants
as may be necessary' and proper for the
efficient discharge of its duties.
(2) Every Council not falling under sub-
section (1) shall, subject to rules framed
under Section 95, appoints a Sanitary
Inspector, a Sub-Engineer, a Revenue
Inspector and an Accountant and may appoint
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50161
6 WP-38223-2025
such other officers and servants as may be
necessary and proper for the efficient
discharge of its duties :
Provided that such Council may appoint a
pail time Health Officer or an Engineer on
such terms and conditions as the State
Government may approve in this
behalf.] [Substituted by M.P. Act No. 15 of
1979.]
(3) The State Government may-
(i) in case of any Council, relax the
provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section
(2) as the case may be, subject to such
conditions as it may think fit to impose; or
(ii) grant permission to any Council to
appoint whether temporarily or otherwise one
person to discharge the duties of any two or
all such officers.
(4) The appointment of Revenue Officer,
Accounts Officer, Sanitary' Inspector [Sub-
Engineer] [Substituted by M.P. Act No. 31 of
1973.], Revenue Inspector and Accountant
shall be subject to confirmation by the State
Government and no such post or the post of
any other officer or servant as may be
specified by the State Government in this
behalf shall be created or abolished and no
alteration in the emoluments thereof shall be
made without the previous approval of the
State Government, and every appointment to,
and dismissal from such post, shall be subject
to a like approval.
(5) No order of suspension for a period
exceeding one month shall be passed against
any officer mentioned in or specified under
sub-section (1) and no resignation tendered
by any such officer shall be accepted without
previous approval of the State Government.
(6) Unless the State Government otherwise
directs the power of appointing Municipal
Officers and servants other than those
mentioned in or specified under sub-section
(4) shall vest in the President-in-Council.
(7) The State Government may transfer any
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50161
7 WP-38223-2025
officer or servant of a Council mentioned in
sub-sections (1) and (2) and in receipt of total
emoluments exceeding one hundred rupees to
any other Council.] [Substituted by M.P. Act
No. 32 of 1967.]
(8) The State Government may prescribe
the classes or grades of officers and servants
who shall have the right to appeal from any
decision of the Chief Municipal Officer, the
[President-in-Council] [Substituted by M.P.
Act No. 20 of 1998.], the prescribed authority
or any other authority empowered in his
behalf, inflicting any departmental
punishment other than censure.
(9) The authority hearing an appeal made
under sub-section (8) shall have power to set-
aside or reduce the punishment against which
the appeal is preferred.''
13. Under the aforesaid section, every
Council shall, subject to the rules framed
under Section 95 and in addition to the
appointment of members of the Municipal
Services of the State under sub-section (1) of
section 86, appoint such other officers and
servants as the case may be for the efficient
discharge of the duties.
14. Under Section 95 of the Municipalities
Act, the State Government is having power to
make rules in respect of qualification
recruitment, appointment, leave, scale of pay,
all allowances by whatever name called, loan,
pension, gratuity, compassionate fund,
provident fund, annuity, dismissal, removal,
conduct and other departmental punishment
and appeal and service conditions for
Municipal employees other than a member of
the Municipal Service.
15. So far as the Shikshakarmis working in
the Municipal Corporation is concerned, the
similar provision is there under Section 58 of
the Municipal Corporation Act which says
that subject to the rules made by the State
Government in respect of Set-up, Strength,
Recruitment, Appointment, Pay-scales,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50161
8 WP-38223-2025
Allowance and other conditions of service,
the Corporation shall appoint such officers
and servants as the case may be necessary for
the efficient performance of the functions of
the Corporation.
16. Therefore, the definition of the
'Appointing Authority' under Section 58 of
the Municipal Corporation Act and under
Section 94 of the Municipalities Act is the
same with the definition given in the Rules of
1998 & 2008. As per Rule 3 of the Rules of
1998, these rules shall apply to the
Shikshakarmis appointed by the Municipal
Corporation and the Municipality under these
rules. The method of selection is the same as
applicable to the regular employees i.e. by
direct recruitment by the selection and by the
promotion. Therefore, there is no different
procedure for appointment and service
conditions for the employees of Municipal
Council as well as the Shikshakarimis
appointed under the Rules of 1998.
17. The State Government came up with a
rules of 1998 on which the appellant has
placed heavy reliance. Under this Rule, the
cadre Adhyapak Samvarg has been classified
as Adhyapak Samvarg is Varishth Adhyapak,
Adhyapak and Sahayak Adhyapak. Rule 5 of
the Rules of 2008 provides for selection and
method of appointment. As per sub-rule (1)
of Rule 5 by merger of Shikshakarmis
appointed under the Rules of 1998 is one of
the method of appointment. As per Rules 8,
the person employed under these rules shall
discharge the duties under the administrative
and disciplinary control of Nagreeya Nikay
and as per Note, a person employed or
merged under these rules shall be entitled for
leave similar to the regular teacher in the
School Education Department. A person
employee under these rules shall be governed
by the Nagreeya Nikay Rules. Their
retirement age shall be 62 years. Therefore,
in all respect, they are the regular employees
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50161
9 WP-38223-2025
of Nagreeya Nikay and entitled for all the
benefits which are payable to the regular
employees of the Nagariya Nikay.
18. Now the State Government has come
up with a new rule known as ''Madhya
Pradesh School Education Service (Teaching
Cadre) Service Conditions and Recruitment
Rules, 2018''. Under Rule 2(a) of this Rule,
the Appointing Authority in respect of the
service means the authority as shown in
Column No.6 of Schedule 1 i.e.
Commissioner of Public Instructions, Joint
Director, Public Instructions and District
Education Officer in respect of Uchcha
Madhyamik Shikshak, Madhyamik Shikshak
and Prathmik Shikshak respectively.
19. The State Government has framed these
rules relating to service conditions and
recruitment of Teaching Cadre in the Madhya
Pradesh School Education Service. All the
persons appointed by or under the control of
local bodies under the Rules of 2008 i.e.
Adhyapak Samvarg have been merged into
the Teaching Cadre under the rules of 2018.
All the rules and service conditions
applicable to the Government employee have
been made applicable to the persons working
in teaching cadre. Now virtually all teachers
have become State Government employees
and their services are liable to be counted
from the date of their initial appointment,
hence, they entitled for pensionary benefits
also as claimed in the writ petition. Now they
are under the absolute control of the School
Education Department at par with the
Government teacher. Hence, no interference
is called for in the impugned order dated
04.12.2023 passed by the Writ Court.
20. In view of the foregoing discussion,
Writ Appeal stands dismissed."
4. The respondents are directed to decide the case of the petitioner
for pension and other retiral benefits in terms of the aforesaid judgment
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50161
10 WP-38223-2025
passed by the Division Bench and if petitioner is found to be at par with
those petitioners, then the said benefits be awarded to the petitioner within
three months from the date of furnishing of certified copy of this order.
5. With the aforesaid, petition is disposed of.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
Astha
