Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1115 (MP)

PROFESSOR R K MALVIYA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2003-09-23

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2003
Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioners are seeking enforcement of Govt, orders granting C. C. A. , L. T. C. , Medical Allowance, Dearness Allowance, Interim Relief, allowed time to time to the teachers and other employees working in Govt. Educational Institutions. ( 2. ) BY this writ petition the petitioners are seeking parity with the teachers and other employees working in Govt. Educational Institutions in pay scale salary and other allowances etc. ( 3. ) THE petitioners are the teachers employed in different Govt, aided Institutions, some of them are the teachers in Govt. Aided Schools and some of them are the Lecturers/professors in the Govt. Aided Colleges, but all of them are being governed by the provisions of M. P. Ashaskiya Siksha Sansthan (Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 and the rules made thereunder. The said Adhiniyam shall be called "adhiniyam" hereinafter. ( 4. ) UNDER Rule 33 (1) of Grand -in -Aid rules made under the Adhiniyam, it was made clear that the scale of pay of the teachers and other employees of Educational Institutions, which is in receipt of Govt. Grant shall be in accordance with this sanction for the correspondence category of the employees in Govt. Educational Institutions. All the institutions in which the different petitioners are employees are getting 100% Grant-in-aid from the state Government. The grant given by the State Government is under the revised grant in aid rules for Non-Governmental Educational Institutions in the State of M. P. The State Government from time to time issued its circulars providing benefits of various allowances to the employees of Govt. Educational Institutions viz. , CCA, (City Compensatory Allowances), L. T. C. , Medical Allowance, Dearness Allowance, Interim Relief etc. As the petitioners are duly appointed the post in Private Govt. Aided Institutions are entitled to seek enforcement of orders - circulars issued by the Govt. giving benefits to the govt. Employees. According to the petitioners they are entitled for parity of pay scale as per the executive instructions of the Govt. and the State Govt. is under obligation to provide all those facilities to the petitioners. On the basis of these premised reasons the petitioners have sought the relief to pay the salary without deduction to the petitioners; payment of Dearness Allowance, increased time to time; payment of interim relief; payment of C. C. A. , Medical allowance; L. T. C. etc. ( 5. is under obligation to provide all those facilities to the petitioners. On the basis of these premised reasons the petitioners have sought the relief to pay the salary without deduction to the petitioners; payment of Dearness Allowance, increased time to time; payment of interim relief; payment of C. C. A. , Medical allowance; L. T. C. etc. ( 5. ) IN the return it has been contended that the decision to curtail the grant-in-aid being granted to the Govt. Educational Institutions in a phase wise manner has been taken by the State Govt. The grant is proposed to be curtailed by 20% every year and the institutions, which were finally receiving 100% grant in aid are now being 60% grant. A copy of memorandum issued by the Govt. to that effect has been placed on record as Annexure R-2. On the basis of these submissions it has been prayed by the respondents that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. ( 6. ) I have heard the arguments of learned Counsel Shri Vivek Rusia, shri Sujoy Paul, Shri S. R. Tamrakar, Shri Manoj Sharma, appearing for the petitioners, and heard Shri B. Dsilva, Dy. Adv. Gen. with Shri Mukesh agarwal and Shri K. C. Gildayal, Govt. Advocate, for the State. Indeed the controversy involved in the above said writ petitions had been put to rest by the Division Benchs decision of this Court in the case of Suresh Kumar dwivedi Vs. State of M. P. , 1994 JLJ 73 , the said decision was approved by the apex Court, except with respect to the payment of actual arrears which was directed to be paid w. e. f. 1-8-1989. Later on in the case of V. V. Asthana and others Vs. State of M. P. , the learned Single Bench of Gwalior, (Rajendra menon, J.) has reiterated the law in the same manner and allowed the petitions of the employees employed in non Govt. Educational Institutions. A similar decision was taken by learned Single Judge (A. M. Sapre, J.) at Indore Bench. Learned Singh Bench of this principal seat (A. K. Mishra, J.) in the case of kundan Singh Parihar Vs. State of M. P. , W. P. No. 6005/2001, decided on 28-11-2001, has reiterated the same law. ( 7. Educational Institutions. A similar decision was taken by learned Single Judge (A. M. Sapre, J.) at Indore Bench. Learned Singh Bench of this principal seat (A. K. Mishra, J.) in the case of kundan Singh Parihar Vs. State of M. P. , W. P. No. 6005/2001, decided on 28-11-2001, has reiterated the same law. ( 7. ) RULE 33 (i) of the Grant -in -Aid rules, reads as under:- "the scales of pay of the teachers including the head of the institutions and other employees of educational institution which is in receipt of the Govt. grant shall be in accordance with those sanctioned for the corresponding categories of employees in Govt. Educational Institutions. " ( 8. ) PRIOR to the amendment in 2000 Salary was defined under Section 2 (j) which reads thus:-"pay and dearness allowance payable to a teacher or employee. " the definition of salary have been subsequently amended by amendment Act no. 26/2000, the amended definition of salary means :-"pay and other allowance payable to the teachers or employees as may be defined by the institution. " the dispute before incorporation of the amendment is governed by the definition which existed in Section 2 (j) of the said Act. It would be pertinent to mention that the new rate has not been notified after the amendment. ( 9. ) IN this view of the matter, by taking assistance of the aforesaid decisions I am inclined to allow these writ petitions, with a direction to extend the same benefits to the petitioners and grant benefits of revised pay scale, same rate of D. A. admissible H. R. A. be paid to the petitioners till the date of retirement. Let the requisite payment be made within a period of three months, from today along with the interest of 6% per annum. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. Writ Petitions allowed.