Judgment ( 1. ) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the action of respondent No. 1 by not providing them pay scale of bal Mandir Shikshika (hereinafter referred to as shikshika ). According to them they are entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040/- from the date of their regularisation vide order Annexure-P-2 dated 29. 4. 1998. ( 2. ) THE contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that earlier the petitioners were appointed on the fixed pay of Rs. 150/- per month. Thereafter, the State Government sanctioned the post of Shikshika and accordingly respondent No. 1 issued order Annexure-P-2 on 29. 4. 98 regularising the services of the petitioners in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1530/-on the post of Shikshika. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the pay scale of corresponding post in the State Government is Rs. 1200-2040/- and accordingly the same pay scale be paid to the petitioners. It has been further contended that the said pay scale has now been revised to Rs. 4000-6000/ -. ( 3. ) ON the other hand, it has been contended by Shri Mohd. Nasir, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 that the State Government accorded sanction of two posts of Shikshika vide sanction order dated 4. 4. 98. On receipt of such sanction services of the petitioners were regularised against such posts in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1530/- vide order Annexure-P-2 dated 29. 4. 98, the corresponding pay scale of which at present is Rs. 3050-4590/-and it is being provided to the petitioners as per budget estimate for the year 2002-2003 (Annexure-R-1/1 ). It has been further contended that the State Government has only sanctioned the posts but did not sanction the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040, therefore, respondent No. 1 has fixed the petitioners in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1530/ -. ( 4. ) AFTER having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. ( 5. ) IT is no more in dispute that two posts were sanctioned by the State Government in terms of Section 58 of M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (in short the Act) and accordingly the petitioners were regularised. ( 5. ) IT is no more in dispute that two posts were sanctioned by the State Government in terms of Section 58 of M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (in short the Act) and accordingly the petitioners were regularised. On going through Section 58 (1) of the Act it is gathered that subject to the rules made by the State Government in respect to the Set-up, Strength, Recruitment, Appointment, Pay-scales, Allowances and other conditions of service of officers and servants of the Corporation, the Corporation shall appoint such officers and servants as may be necessary for the efficient performance of the functions of the Corporation. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that in the year 2000 the State Government has framed rules, namely, M. P. Municipal Corporations (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Servants) Rules, 2000, but in the rules no pay scale has been provided for the post which the petitioners are holding. The pay scale of the corresponding post in the State Government is Rs. 1200- 2040/- which is now revised to Rs. 4000-6000/ -. By inviting my attention to Annexure-P-5 filed along with the rejoinder it has been contended by the learned Counsel that Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur is providing same pay scale to its teachers and other Municipal Corporations are also paying same pay scale. Since in the above said rules no pay scale of Rs. 950-1530/- has been provided and in terms of Section 58 of the Act post have been sanctioned by the State Government and accordingly the services of the petitioners have been regularised, the view of this Court is that the petitioners are entitled for the pay scale as is admissible to this post and which is Rs. 1200-2040/- and now the corresponding pay scale is revised to Rs. 4000-6000/ -. The respondent No. 1 is hereby directed to provide said pay scale to the petitioners from the date of their regularisation. Respondent No. 1 may seek instructions from the respondent No. 2 in regard to fixation of petitioners in the said pay scale. Let difference of wages be paid on or before 31. 7. 2006, failing which the petitioners shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of 5% per annum w. e. f. 1. 8. 2006. ( 6. ) THIS petition is allowed to the extent stated hereinabove with no order as to costs.