[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Goverdhan Tyagi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8004
1 WP-670-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 6 th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 670 of 2020
GOVERDHAN TYAGI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Narottam Sharma - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Rinkesh Goyal - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been
preferred seeking following relief (s):
"i. The respondents be directed to grant the
benefit of IIIrd Samayman Vetanman to the petitioners
w.e.f. 01.7.2014 or the date of completion of 30 years
of service (whichever is later) with arrears,
ii) any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit in the circumstances of the case may also be
granted,
iii) costs may also be awarded,"
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the controversy involved
in this petition has already been decided by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8004
2 WP-670-2020
at Principal Seat Jabalpur vide order dated 11.12.2024 passed in WP.
No.1615/2023 (S.P. Mishra vs. State of M. P. and others) . The same is
reproduced as under:-
"Assailing the order dated 11.11.2022 passed by
respondent no. 3, by which, the representation
submitted by the petitioner for extension of benefit of
Third Kramonnati / Third Time Pay Scale on
completion of 30 years of age has been rejected, the
present petition has been filed.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a
Teacher working in the Private Aided School namely
Shri Tilak Rashtriya Vidyalaya, Katni which receives
100% Grant-in-Aid from the Madhya Pradesh State
Government. The petitioner was appointed on
5.10.1987. The General Administration Department had
issued a circular on 25.10.2017 directing the Principal
Secretary, School Education Department that the
teachers who have completed 30 years of service will be
entitled for grant of Third Kramonnati / Third Time
Scale Pay and it will be made effective from 1.7.2014.
In pursuance to which, the District Education Officer,
Katni wrote a letter to the Commissioner, Sthaniya
Pariksha Nidhi, Jabalpur regarding fixation of grade
payment to the teachers of private aided schools where
the petitioner is working. In pursuant to the letter dated
2.3.2022, benefit of first and second time scale of pay
has already been granted to the petitioner. It is also the
case of the petitioner that he has already completed 30
years of service in the School Education Department
and, therefore, he is entitled for grant of Third
Kramonnati / Third Time Scale Pay since 2017 in
accordance with the order dated 25.10.2017. The
representation preferred by the petitioner was not
considered by the authorities concerned, therefore, he
filed W.P.No.13316/2022 and the said writ petition was
disposed of vide order dated 21.06.2022 directing the
District Education Officer, Katni to consider and decide
the representation of the petitioner with regard to the
payment of Third Time Scale Pay. In pursuance to the
same, the District Education Officer, Katni vide
impugned order dated 11.11.2022 has rejected the
representation filed by the petitioner for grant of Third
Kramonnati / Third Time Scale of Pay on the ground
that no such circular has been issued by the Madhya
Pradesh State Government for extension of benefit of
Third Kramonnati / Third Time Scale of Pay to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8004
3 WP-670-2020
teachers of private aided schools.
3. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that the
School, in which, the petitioner has been working since
1987, is affiliated with the Board of Secondary
Education, therefore, all the Rules, Regulations and
Bye-laws of Board of Secondary Education will be
applicable in the School. As per Regulation 73 of the
Board of Secondary Education (Madhya Pradesh)
Regulations, 1965, the scales of pay of the staff in the
educational institutions which are in respect of
Government grant, shall not be less than those
sanctioned for the corresponding staff in Government
institutions. It is averred that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and
another vs. Sharique A. Ali and others, reported in
(2020) 20 SCC 450 has directed that 6th Pay
Commission scales shall be given to the Teachers /
Lecturers /Nonteaching staff working in the Private
Aided Schools / Institutions in the State of Madhya
Pradesh. It has been further observed that the Madhya
Pradesh Ashashkiya Shikshan Sanstha Adhiniyam, 1978
as amended by the Madhya Pradesh Ashashkiya
Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya
Karmachariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya Sanshodhan
Adhiniyam, 2000, will be applicable to those Teachers /
Lecturers / Non-teaching Staff, who are appointed by
the private aided educational institutions in the State of
Madhya Pradesh after promulgation of the amended
Act. Admittedly, the petitioner has been appointed prior
to introduction of amended provisions; therefore, he is
entitled for grant of Third Kramonnati / Third Time
Scale Pay. Therefore, the order impugned rejecting the
representation of the petitioner is per se illegal and
deserves to be quashed.
4. It is also pointed out by counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner has also filed applications being IA
No.1433/2024 & IA No.1630/2024 for taking the
documents which are the circulars of the School
Education Department on record.
5. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by
counsel for the respondents and argued in support of the
impugned order. It is contended that the circular dated
25.10.2017 has been issued by the respondents
authorities wherein the scheme for grant of Third
Kramonnati / Third Time Scale Pay was issued for the
teachers and assistant teachers working under the
Government Schools and not under the private aided
institutions. The aforesaid fact was rightly considered
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8004
4 WP-670-2020
by the authorities and the representation was rejected.
By way of additional reply filed in pursuance to order
dated 3.9.2024, the respondents have brought on record
the circular dated 30.9.2014 issued by the Finance
Department pointing out the fact that in pursuance to
the direction given in W.P.No.26310/2022 (Indore
Bench) decided on 7.11.2022, the authorities have
considered the claim and rejected the representation of
the similarly placed employee vide order dated
3.5.2024, and the circular dated 30.9.2014 is placed on
record as Annexure-AR/2 to substantiate the argument
that the benefit of Third Kramonnati / Third Time Scale
Pay is not available to the employees working under the
private aided institutions.
6. Counsel for the petitioner by way of rejoinder has
brought on record very purpose and object of granting
financial up-gradation which was considered by the
Supreme Court in the case of State of Tripura vs. K. K.
Roy, reported in (2004) 9 SCC 65 and Federation of
Railway Officers' Association Vs. Union of India
reported in (2003) 4 SCC 289 . He has further placed
reliance upon an order passed by this Court in the case
o f Arun Kumar Singh vs. State of M.P. & others , in
W.P.No.1524/2013 (Gwalior Bench) along with other
connected writ petitions decided on 8 December, 2014,
reported in ILR (2016) MP 747 , in which, it has been
held that the employees of private aided institutions are
also entitled for the similar benefits.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
8. Singular question which came up for consideration
before this Court is that whether the employees like the
petitioner who are working under the private institutions
receiving grant-in-aid are entitled to receive the benefit
of Third Kramonnati / Third Time Scale Pay in terms of
the circulars issued by the State Government or not. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the
applicability of Adhyapakon Tatha Anya
Karmachariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya Sanshodhan
Adhiniyam, 2000 in the case of Sharique A. Ali (supra)
and has held as under :-
"6. It is clarified that the Madhya Pradesh
Ashaskiya Shukshan Sanstha Adhiniyam,
1978, as amended by Madhya Pradesh
Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon
Tatha Anya Karmacharyon Ke Vetno Ka
Sandaya) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2000 (for
short "the Amended Act") shall not be made
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8004
5 WP-670-2020
applicable to the respondents and other
similarly situated persons.
7. It is further clarified that the Amended Act
is applicable to those Teachers /
Lecturers/Non-teaching staff, who are
appointed by the private aided educational
institutions in the State of Madhya Pradesh,
after promulgation of the Amended Act."
It has been clarified that the said Adhiniyam, 2000
will be applicable to the employees who are appointed
after cutoff date.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Council of
Scientific and Industrial Research and another Vs. K. G.
S. Bhatt and another reported in (1989) 4 SCC 635
opined that it is often said and indeed, adroitly, an
organisation public or private does not 'hire a hand' but
engages or employs a whole man. The person is
recruited by an organisation not just for a job, but for a
whole career. One must, therefore, be given an
opportunity to advance. This is the oldest and most
important feature of the free enterprise system. The
opportunity for advancement is a requirement for
progress of any organisation. It is an incentive for
personnel development as well. In view of this
judgment, it is clear that there cannot be any modern
management much less any career planning, manpower
development, management development etc. which is
not related to a system of career progression.
10. The Supreme Court in the case of O.Z. Hussain (Dr)
Vs. Union of India, reported in (1990) (Supp.) SCC 688
opined that promotion is thus a normal incidence of
service. There too is no justification why while similarly
placed officers in other ministries would have the
benefit of promotion, the non-medical 'A' Group
scientists in the establishment of Director General of
Health Services would be deprived of such advantage.
In a welfare State, it is necessary that there should be an
efficient public service and, therefore, it should have
been the obligation of the Ministry of Health to attend
to the representations of the Council and its members
and provide promotional avenue for this category of
officers.
11. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Tripura
and others Vs. K. K. Roy, reported in (2004) 9 SCC 65
again considered the aforesaid judgments and opined
that the employees must get two higher grades, one
upon expiry of period of 12 years from the date of
joining and other upon expiry of 24 years of service.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8004
6 WP-670-2020
The basic reason for providing these benefits is to
provide a ladder for advancement. Such opportunity of
career advancement either in the shape of promotion or
in absence of promotion as financial up-gradation is
necessary to instill enthusiasm amongst the employees.
The avenues of promotion / financial upgradation kill
stagnation and create a healthy atmosphere in the
institution. This gives boost to employees and
ultimately helps the institution in terms of development
and ultimate output of the organization. For said reason
also there is no justification in curtailing the benefit of
financial up-gradation in favour of the petitioners. It is
seen that this Court in W.P.No. 2092/2003 (Ram
Naresh Tiwari & Others Vs. The State of M.P. &
others) decided on 28.2.2008 followed the Division
Bench judgment of this Court in Suresh Kumar Vs.
State of M.P. (1994) JLJ 73 and opined that the analogy
flowing from Suresh Kumar (supra) can be applied in
the present case because the State Government is paying
the revised pay-scale to the teachers and, therefore, it
cannot deny the facility of financial up-gradation /
Kramonnati. The other judgments cited by petitioners
are not applicable in the facts of this case.
12. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Suresh Kumar Dwivedi and others vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and others, reported in 1993 MPLJ Page 663
has considered the aspect that a teacher must get his
salary on the appointed date. Payment cannot be
delayed on the pretext of completing the formalities and
scrutinizing the pay bills etc. Further considered the
grant of benefits i.e. the teachers of the aided
institutions are entitled to the same rate of D.A. which
is being paid to the government teachers. There cannot
be any disparity amongst the teachers performing in the
aided institutions and those working under the
government institutions. However, the Division Bench
has observed that no direction can be issued to the State
Government for extending the benefit of time bound
advancement in the pay scales to the employees of
aided institutions
13. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Arun Kumar Singh (Supra) in W.P. No.1524/2013 and
other connected matters (Gwalior Bench) decided on
8.12.2014 has observed as under :-
"7. It is gathered that during the pendency of
this petition, Civil Appeal No. 6362/2004
(State of M.P.Vs. Dr. Sharique Ali) is
decided by the Apex Court. In the final order,
the Apex Court made it clear that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8004
7 WP-670-2020
amendment act (26 of 2000) shall not be
made applicable to the respondents and
similarly situated persons. The further
clarification given in para 7 of the order
makes it crystal clear that the said
amendment is applicable to those
Teachers/lecturers/non-teaching staff, who
are appointed by the private aided
educational institutions in Madhya Pradesh
after promulgation of the amended act. Thus,
the curtains are finally drawn by the Apex
Court on the applicability of the amendment
act. The petitioners being appointees of prior
to promulgation of the amended act are not
governed by the said amendment.
8. Admittedly, the petitioners were getting
the same pay-scale which was enjoyed by
their counterparts working in the
Government institutions. The Government
also passed a circular W.P.1524/13 11 dated
18.4.1996 (Annexure P-5). In the said
circular the State Government decided that
the employees who have completed
stipulated years of service shall be entitled
for senior scale on completion of stipulated
years of service. The singular reason for
discontinuance of this benefit is introduction
of the amended act. A minute reading of
impugned order dated 11.4.2002 shows that
the operative reason for discontinuance of the
benefit of senior scale/Krammonati was that
w.e.f.1.4.2000 the State Government has
withdrawn its liability to pay the salary to the
employees working in aided institutions. It is
stated in the said order that the State
Government neither appoints the employees
in aided institutions, nor decides pay of these
employees. The management of those
institutions are in the hands of respective
private institutions. The Government only
provides annual block grant to these
institutions. Apart from this yearly block
grant, the State Government is not liable to
pay any other amount. It is apparent that the
basic reason for issuance of Annexure P-1 is
completely based on the amended act which
was made applicable w.e.f. 1.4.2000. Once it
is held by the Apex Court that such amended
act cannot be made applicable against such
employees, who were appointed prior to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8004
8 WP-670-2020
1.4.2000, the very foundation for issuance of
Annexure P-1does not survive. Putting it
differently, the impugned order dated
11.4.2002 was passed based on the amended
act which has lost its complete shine as
against the petitioners/employees who were
appointed prior to the amended act. Thus, the
impugned order cannot withstand judicial
scrutiny."
14. Thus, from the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as well as this Court, it is apparently clear that
basic object of time bound promotion benefits is to
avoid stagnation as the cases of promotion could not
have been considered. It is just to provide a promotion
avenue to a particular category of employee. Even
otherwise in the case of Sharique A Ali (supra) the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has already held that benefit of
order dated 11.4.2002, by which, discontinuance of
benefit of senior scale / Kramonnati was made
applicable w.e.f. 1.4.2000, is applicable to those
employees who were appointed after cutoff date and not
to the employees who were appointed prior to 1.4.2000.
Admittedly, the petitioner is appointed in the
respondents department on 5.10.1987, therefore, such
amended Act cannot be made applicable against the
petitioner. Even otherwise, in terms of Regulation 73 of
the Board of Secondary Education (Madhya Pradesh)
Regulations, 1965, the scales of pay of the staff in
educational institutions which are in respect of
Government grant, shall not be less than those
sanctioned for the corresponding staff in Government
institutions.
15. For all the aforesaid reasons, the reasons assigned in
the impugned order are per se illegal, therefore, the
impugned order dated 11.11.2022 (Ann.P/7) is
unsustainable and it is hereby quashed. The respondents
authorities are directed to extend the benefit of Third
Kramonnati / Third Time Scale Pay to the petitioner on
completion of 30 years of service in the respondents
department.
16. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and
disposed of."
3. Learned counsel for respondent/State submitted that present case is
not identical with the aforesaid case.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8004
9 WP-670-2020
4. Considering the aforesaid, this petition is also disposed of in the
same terms, conditions and the direction(s) contained in S.P. Mishra (supra)
which shall apply to the present petition mutatis mutandis with full force.
5. Respondents are directed to comply the aforesaid directions within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Abhi
