IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

AT INDORE

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

<>

&

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI

<>

ON THE 15

<>

th

<>

OF JANUARY, 2026

<>

WRIT APPEAL No. 237 of 2022

<>

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

<>

Versus

MURLIDHAR SHARMA AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Sudeep Bhargava - Dy.A.G for the appellants/State.

Shri Prasanna R. Bhatnagar - Advocate for the respondents.

ORDER

<>

Per

<>

: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla

<>

The present appeal has being filed under Section 2(1) of Madhya

Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypith ko Appeal) Adhiniyam 2005

being aggrieved by the order dated 12/9/2019 passed by the Writ Court in

W.P No.7834/2011, whereby the writ petition preferred by the present

respondents was allowed.

2. Facts of the case draped in brevity are that the respondents are the

employees of Zila Panchayat, District Indore and they were working in the

appellant(s) department i.e Panchayat avam Gramin Vikas Vibhag.

Appellant(s) had issued the circular dated 21-07-2010 regarding grant of 5th

Pay Commission as per recommendation of Pay Commission, benefits have

been given to the petitioners w.e.f. 01-01-2006 in revised pay scale of

1 WA-237-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1275

Rs.5200-20,200 by the appellant(s). A meeting was held on 29-07-2009 by

the appellant no.2 for grant of benefit of 6th Pay Commissions to the

respondents w.e.f. 01-04-2006 and benefit has been given to the respondents

by the appellant(s). Thereafter appellant(s) passed an order dated 02-03-2010

and 18-04-2011 regarding grant of 6th Pay Commission in District and

Janpad Panchayat Employees and also directed to concerning Chief

Executive Officer for recovery of the amount of 6th Pay Scale and according

to instructions given by the appellant no.1, the respondent no.2 passed an

order dated 09-09-2011 for recovery of the amount of 6th Pay Scale from the

respondents without giving any opportunity of hearing and without giving

any show cause notice to the respondents. The respondents had made a

Representation to the respondent No.2, for grant of benefit of 6th Pay

Commission along with dearness allowance. But no action was taken. The

respondents filed a writ petition vide W.P No.7834/2011. The said petition

was allowed and the impugned orders were quashed.

3. Counsel for the appellant(s) submits that the Appellants are bound

to comply with the circulars of the State Government, especially the policy

with regard to payment of salary. Thus, the Appellants had no other option

then to deduct the amount. It would be not out of context to mention here

that Panchayats are entirely independent on the funds provided by the State

Government as they do not have their own source of income. Thus, they are

bound to comply the circulars. It is contended that the employees of the

Panchayat are not at par with the Government employees as the Panchayats

are independent bodies and thus, the employees cannot be treated as

2 WA-237-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1275

Government servants. The Panchayats fall in the category of the semi Govt.

Organization and thus, the panchayats are not bound to extend the same

benefits as are extended to the Government servant. It is argued that the

appellants have rightly denied the benefit of 6th pay commission to the writ

petitioners who are employees of Jila Panchayat and Janpad Panchayat. They

were extending the benefit of 6th pay commission but since they were not

entitled, therefore, the same was withdrawn.

4. The core issue which require consideration by this Court is that

“whether employees of Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat and Jila

Panchayat are to be treated at par with State Government employees in

respect of date of implementation of recommendation of the 6th pay

commission?”

5. Chapter 9 of the Constitution of India mandates the establishment of

the Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat and Jila Panchayat in each State. As

per definition Article 243 (d) “Panchayat” means an institution by whatever

name called of self-government constituted under Article 243B, for the rural

areas. Art. 243B says that "there shall be constituted in every State,

Panchayats at the village, intermediate and district levels in accordance with

the provisions of this Part". Art. 243C provides the composition of

Panchayat for which "the legislature of a State may, by law, make provisions

with respect to the composition of Panchayats". Art. 243 C (2) says that "all

the seats in a Panchayat shall be filled by persons chosen by direct election

from territorial constituencies in the Panchayat area". As per Art. 243E,

"every Panchayat, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being

3 WA-237-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1275

in force, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first

meeting and no longer". Art. 243G defines the power, authority and

responsibility of Panchayat and says that "subject to the provisions of this

Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, endow the Panchayats

with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to

function as institutions of self-government". Article 243 I provides that the

Legislature of a State may, by law, authorise a Panchayat to levy, collect and

appropriate such taxes, duties, tolls and fees in accordance with such

procedure and further provides for making such grants-in-aid to the

Panchayats from the Consolidated Fund of the State. Art. 243(J) provides an

audit of accounts of Panchayat that too by making the law by legislature.

Art. 243(K) deals with the election.

6. It is clear from above that each and every Panchayat is an

independent self Government, enabled to take its own decision in respect of

the law made by the legislature of the State. Article 309 of the Constitution

of India says that subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the act of the

appropriate Legislature may regulate the recruitment, and conditions of

service of persons appointed, to public services and posts in connection with

the affairs of the Union or of any State, therefore the State Legislature may

regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to

public services and posts in connection with the affair of State meaning

thereby the State Government is not competent to decide the recruitment

conditions of the employees of Panchayat. The Government of M.P. in

exercise of power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India

4 WA-237-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1275

framed the Madhya Pradesh Vetan Punrikshan Niyam, 2009 and made it

applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2006 for its government employee but in an order

dated 08.08.2013, the Panchayat and Rural Department of State

Government.has not disclosed any power by which the date of grant of

benefit of 6th Pay Commission has been fixed from 01.04.2013 after

approval of the Finance Department.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the State Government

had taken a consensus decision on account of financial condition to grant the

benefit of 6th pay to the employees of the Janpad Panchayat and Gram

Panchayat w.e.f 2013 and not from 1/1/2006. and, therefore, the learned

Single Judge erred while allowing the writ petition.

8. Per contra, counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned

Single Judge after taking into consideration the submission of both the

parties held that the decision of the appellant to recover the amount was

arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable. It was further argued that the

respondents are the employees of the Panchayat and Panchayat is an

autonomous body and once the employer had taken a decision to grant the

benefit of the 6th pay commission at par with the State Government

employees then the State Government could not have taken an arbitrary

decision to not to grant the same and issue an order of recovery.

9. It is relevant to mention here that today the connected writ appeal

No.2182/2023 filed by the State has been decided in which question was that

"whether the employees of Gram Panchayat/Janpad Panchayat and Jila

Panchayat are to be treated at par with State Government employees in

5 WA-237-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1275

respect of date of implementation of recommendation of the 6th pay

commission?"

10. The other issue was that under which authority the State

Government is competent to fix the date of implementation for the members

of the Panchayat services.

11. In the said writ petition, the State Government had came out with

an order of the State Government dated 6/8/2013 wherein it was decided that

employees of the Jila Panchayat and Gram Panchayat are to be granted the

benefit of the 6th pay commission. However, in the said case, the date for

grant of benefit of 6th pay commission was fixed from 1/4/2013 instead of

1/1/2006. Thus, the stand of the Government, on the basis of the said order,

was that employees of the Jila Panchayat and Gram Panchayat are not

entitled for the benefit of the pay revision. The said decision is arbitrary and

discriminatory and also violative of the doctrine of "Equal Pay for Equal

Work". In the case of Surinder Singh and Anr. vs. Engineer-in-chief CPWD

<>

and Ors.

<>

reported in (1986) 1 SCC 639

<>

, the Court held that the daily wage

worker of CPWD are entitled to the wages equal to regular and permanent

employees as they are discharging identical duties. In the case of Randhir

<>

Singh vs. Union of India and Ors.

<>

reported in (1982) SCC 618

<>

, the Court

held that the grant of lower scale pay to the Delhi Police Force then those in

Delhi administration is unreasonable classification and not in consonance

with the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work". The similar view was

reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Jagjit

<>

Singh and Ors.

<>

reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148

<>

that the principle of "Equal Pay

6 WA-237-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1275

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)

<>

JUDGE

<>

(ALOK AWASTHI)

<>

JUDGE

<>

for Equal Work" applies to the temporary employees and they cannot be

discriminated in respect of the entitlement to minimum regular pay as they

are discharging the same duties as discharged by regular employees against

sanctioned post. In the connected Writ Appeal, this Court has further held

that the decision of the Government to fix the different date for grant of the

benefit of the said payscale from a different date is arbitrary, discriminatory,

unreasonable and contrary to the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work".

12. In view of the aforesaid, it is held that the benefit granted to the

respondent/writ petitioners of revision of pay scale was legal and valid. The

denial to grant the benefit of the revision of pay on the basis of the

recommendations of the pay commission is arbitrary, discriminatory and

contrary to the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work".

13. If any recovery is made, the said amount shall be refunded to the

writ petitioners with 6% interest from the date it is recovered till the same is

paid on the ground that there was no fault, misrepresentation or cheating on

the part of the employees.

14. Accordingly, present Writ Appeal stands dismissed

<>

.

No order as to cost.

PK

7 WA-237-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1275