The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a Writ Appeal filed by the State Government, ruling that employees of Gram, Janpad, and Zila Panchayats are entitled to be treated at par with State Government employees regarding the date of implementation of the 6th Pay Commission recommendations.
The Division Bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi held that fixing a different date for granting pay revision benefits to Panchayat employees is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work.”
Case Background
The appeal challenged the order dated September 12, 2019, passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No. 7834/2011, which had allowed the petition filed by Murlidhar Sharma and other employees of the Zila Panchayat, District Indore.
The respondents (employees) were initially granted the benefits of the 5th Pay Commission w.e.f. January 1, 2006. Subsequently, a meeting held on July 29, 2009, approved the grant of 6th Pay Commission benefits w.e.f. April 1, 2006, which were extended to the respondents.
However, the State later issued orders on March 2, 2010, and April 18, 2011, regarding the 6th Pay Commission for District and Janpad Panchayat employees. Following instructions from the State, an order was passed on September 9, 2011, directing the recovery of the 6th Pay Scale amount from the employees without providing an opportunity for a hearing or a show-cause notice. The employees challenged this recovery, arguing they were entitled to the benefits.
Arguments
The State (Appellants) argued that Panchayats are independent bodies dependent on government funds and fall under the category of semi-government organizations. The State contended that Panchayat employees “cannot be treated as Government servants” and thus the Panchayats “are not bound to extend the same benefits as are extended to the Government servant.” The counsel for the State submitted that since the employees were not entitled to the benefit, it was rightly withdrawn.
The Respondents (Employees) argued that the decision to recover the amount was “arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable.” They submitted that the employer had decided to grant the benefit at par with State Government employees, and the State could not arbitrarily reverse this decision.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The Court framed the core issue as: “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?”
Referencing Article 243 of the Constitution, the Court noted that Panchayats are institutions of self-government. However, under Article 309, the State Legislature regulates the recruitment and conditions of service for public services. The Court observed that the State Government framed the Madhya Pradesh Vetan Punrikshan Niyam, 2009, applicable w.e.f. January 1, 2006, for government employees. The Court noted that in an order dated August 8, 2013, the Panchayat and Rural Department fixed the benefit date as April 1, 2013, without disclosing the power under which this date was fixed.
The Bench relied on the following Supreme Court judgments regarding the principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work”:
- Surinder Singh and Anr. vs. Engineer-in-chief CPWD (1986): Daily wage workers discharging identical duties are entitled to wages equal to regular employees.
- Randhir Singh vs. Union of India (1982): Granting lower pay scales to Delhi Police Force compared to those in Delhi Administration is unreasonable.
- State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Jagjit Singh (2017): The principle applies to temporary employees discharging the same duties as regular employees.
The Court observed:
“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’.”
Decision
The High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal, upholding the Single Judge’s order. The Court declared that the benefit of pay revision granted to the respondents 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’,” the Bench ruled.
The Court further directed that if any recovery has been made, the amount shall be refunded to the employees with 6% interest from the date of recovery until payment, noting that there was “no fault, misrepresentation or cheating on the part of the employees.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Murlidhar Sharma and Others
- Case No: Writ Appeal No. 237 of 2022
- Coram: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla & Justice Alok Awasthi
- Counsel for Appellants: Shri Sudeep Bhargava (Dy. A.G.)
- Counsel for Respondents: Shri Prasanna R. Bhatnagar
