ORDER V.S. Kokje, J. 1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 1305/87 (Panchayat Karmachari Sangh, M.P. v. The State of M.P. and Ors.). 2-3. The petitioner No. 1 in Misc. Petition No. 982 of 87 is a registered Association of employees of Janpad Panchayat and Jila Panchayat of district Ratlam. The other petitioners are or were employees of these Panchayats. The petitioner No. 1 in Misc. Petition No. 1305/87 is a Trade Union named Panchayat Karmachari Sangh, M. P. duly registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, it is represented by its President and office bearers. In both these petitions a declaration that the employees of the Janpad Panchayat and Jila Panchayat are Government servants has been sought and a direction has been sought that they be treated as Government servants and be paid all the benefits, which are available to a Government servant. A grievance of discrimination has been made on the ground that some of the employees of Janpad Panchayat and Jila Panchayat in the Mahakaushal region are being given favourable treatment and are being given all the benefits of Government Service, the employees of Madhya Bharat region are not being given these benefits. However, the State Government in its return has refuted these allegations and no further particulars have been placed by the petitioners before us, on the basis of which the charge of discrimination can be decided. A rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioners in -Misc. Petition No. 982/87, which heavily relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Mathuradas Mohanlal Kedia and Ors. v. S. D. Munshaw and Ors., AIR 1981 SC 53 . At the time of argument also stress was laid on the aforesaid Supreme Court ruling and another reported in State of Gujarat & another v. Ramanlal Keshav Lal Soni and Ors., AIR 1984 SC 161 . 4. It has been argued for the petitioners that in similar circumstances the servants of Janpad and Jila Panchayats have been given the status of Government servants by the Supreme Court. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the decision reported in Mathuradas's case (supra). The question before the Supreme Court in that case was whether Panchayat service constituted under Section 203 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1962 was a Civil Service of the State. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the decision reported in Mathuradas's case (supra). The question before the Supreme Court in that case was whether Panchayat service constituted under Section 203 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1962 was a Civil Service of the State. After examining the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Acts,, the Court held that the Panchayat service constituted under Section 203 of the Gujarat Act had all the characteristics of a Civil Service of a State and was, therefore, a Civil Service of the State of Gujarat. 5. We have to exercise caution in reading and interpreting the aforesaid judgment especially because the judgment was not conclusive as would be clear from its paragraph 25. Two questions, were answered by the Court and the cases were directed to be fixed before a larger Bench. Not only this, the same cases, namely, Mathuradas's case and the State of Gujarat's case (supra) were decided by another five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, the decision of which is reported in AIR 1984 SC 161 (supra). In para 2 of this judgment, it has been stated that the judgment reported in AIR 1981 SC 53 was set aside and the appeal and the Writ Petitions were directed to be set down for hearing once more by the Constitution Bench and that is how the matter again went before the Constitution Bench. Technically, therefore, the judgment reported in AIR 1981 SC 53 could not have been cited before us because it has already been set aside. However, it would not make much diference because the judgment reported in AIR 1984 SC 161 also takes the view that the members of the Panchayat service constituted under Section 203 of the Gujarat Act is a Civil Service and the members of the Panchayat service were Government servants. It is clear from a reading of both the aforesaid judgments that though it has been held that the members of the Panchayat service constituted under Section 203 of the Gujarat Act were Government servants, it has not been decided by the Supreme Court that each and every servant of the Panchayat would be holding a civil post and would be a Government servant. In para 22 of the judgment reported in AIR 1981 SC 53 , the Court has observed as under : - "We, however make it clear that it is quite possible that under the Statute it may be open to the Panchayats to employ servants for the purpose of administration of the Panchayats who may not members of the Panchayat Service. We are concerned in these cases only with the members of the Panchayat service constituted under Section 203(1) with regard to whose appointment and conditions of service the Government alone has been entrusted with the power to make rules under Section 203(3)." 6. In this background let us examine the provisions of the Gujarat Act and compare them with our own Act in the State of M. P. Section 203 of the Gujarat Act has been reproduced in para 5 of the judgment reported in AIR 1981 SC 53 . A bare reading of the section would show that a specific authority for constitution of such service was given by the Gujarat Act to the State Government. In Madhya Pradesh neither in the 1962 Act nor in the 1981 Act and not even in the latest Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1990 any provision like Section 203 of the Gujarat Act ever existed. No such provision was pointed out to us by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. In the absence of power to constitute a service like the service constituted under Section 203 of the Gujarat Act, the Supreme Court rulings reported in AIR 1981 SC 53 and AIR 1984 SC 161 (supra) have really no application to our case. At the time this petition was filed, the M. P. Panchayat Act, 1981 was in force, it has now been replaced by the 'M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1990. Earlier the M. P. Pamchayat Act, 1962 was in force. 7. The appointment of Secretary of Gram Panchayat and appointment of Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat and appointment of Secretary of Jila Panchayat under the 1962 Act was governed by Sections 72, 144 and 180 of that Act. Section 62 of the 1981 Act, provided for appointment of Secretary of a Gram Panchayat, a Chief Executive Officer of a Janpad Panchayat and a Secretary of the Jila Panchayat. Section 62 of the 1981 Act, provided for appointment of Secretary of a Gram Panchayat, a Chief Executive Officer of a Janpad Panchayat and a Secretary of the Jila Panchayat. The appointments of other Officers and servants of Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat and Jila Panchayat were governed by Sections 74, 146 and 188 of the 1962 Act. Section 63 of the 1981 Act made provision for appointment of other officers and servants of these Panchayats and qualifications, method of recruitment and salaries, leave and allowance and other conditions of service including disciplinary matters were left to be prescribed by the rules. In the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1990, Section 67 deals with the appointment of Secretary and Chief Executive Officers and Section 68 deals with the appointment of other officers and servants. In none of the Acts, which have been in force in the State of Madhya Pradesh as also in the current Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1990, there is any provision for establishing Panchayat service in the State. The provisions which exist are very clear on the point that servants appointed under 1963 or 1981, Act and under the equivalent provisions in the 1962 and 1990 Acts are not Government servants. Section 64 of the 1981 Act, which was equivalent to Section 74-A and Section 188-A of the 1962 Act speaks of deputation of Government servants to a Panchayat. This would clearly show that there is a distinction between a Government servant and a servant of Panchayat. 8. The petitioners have heavily relied on the rules framed in 1976 by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 146(2) of the 1962 Act called "M. P. Janpad Panchayat Karmachari (Eligibility, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1976." It was argued on the basis of these rules that they are analogous to the rules framed under Section 203 of the Gujarat Act. A perusal of the rules would not bear out this contention. Merely because an Act gives power to the State Government to prescribe the conditions of service of employees of a Panchayat constituted under the Act, the servants covered by such rules do not become servants of the Government. Government is only a rule making authority in such a case. A perusal of the rules would show that they are meant for application to the employees of a Janpad Panchayat. Government is only a rule making authority in such a case. A perusal of the rules would show that they are meant for application to the employees of a Janpad Panchayat. Merely because such rules have been framed, it cannot be said that those who are governed in the matter of conditions of service by such rules become servants of the rule making authority. 9. In the result, we do not find any force in the contention that the officers/servants of the Janpad and Jila Panchayats in Madhya Pradesh are entitled to all the benefits of the status of Government servants on the basis of the rulings of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1981 SC 53 , and AIR 1984 SC 161 (supra). The petitions, therefore, fail and are hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs. The. security deposit, if any, be refunded after verification.