State Of M.P.& Ors vs V.V.Ashthana & Ors

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to make the payment in accordance with the aforesaid direction." The teachers complained that in spite of this order, the payments were not being made in the revised pay scales (which were revised as per the Vth Pay Commission and which pay scales were been paid to the teachers employed in the Government Institutes). It was an admitted position that in Writ Petition No. 2029 of 2000, that Court relying on some other decisions, clearly held that the teachers, who were employed in the private aided schools, also were entitled to the benefits of the revised pay scales. It was on that basis that the contempt application was moved, since those benefits were not being passed to the teachers of the private schools, aided by the Government. The Learned Judge in the contempt petition also noted that the entitlement, as was found by the Learned 3 Single Judge in the Writ Petition was challenged before the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 48 of 2003, however, the Division Bench had also dismissed the said Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), thereby confirming the judgment of the Learned Single Judge. The matters did not stop here and the Learned Judge had further noted that the State had challenged the judgment passed in the LPA before this Court in SLP(C) No. 1085 of 2004 and had also prayed for staying the order of the Learned Single Judge, however, this Court did not grant the stay, though the leave was granted (now, C.A. No. 6399 of 2004). The Learned Judge also noted the intervention of an Act called M.P. Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karamchariyaon Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 (hereinafter called `Adhiniyam' for short), under which the State Government had issued an order dated 21.1.2000, directing that after 1.4.2000, the grant-in-aid, which was granted to the private institutions, would be reduced every year by 20% and thus, after five years, the aforesaid amount would be entirely stopped. The constitutional validity of the amending Act 26 of 2000 to this Adhiniyam was challenged in various petitions before this Court. The Division Bench had declared the said Amendment Act No. 26 of 2000 as ultra vires and constitutional invalid, having been hit by Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and further that this judgment was challenged before this Court, where this Court had passed an order dated 6.5.2002 in SLP(C) No. 8534 of 2002, issuing notice and staying the operation of the judgment. However, a condition was imposed that the State shall 4 continue to give grant-in-aid at the rate of 50% for the year 2002-03 to the respondent educational institutions. This Court then, in the same matter, passed an order on 23.1.2004, whereby, petitioner-State was directed to pay the entire arrears of salary, as per the orders of the Court to the respondent teachers within a period of four weeks.

5. We will not go into the depth of the matter at this stage, however, it will be better if the teachers are paid the benefits of the Vth Pay Commission upto 31.3.2009. The matter shall be heard in the first week of April, 2009 peremptorily. We further clarify that this payment of additional benefit as per the Vth Pay Commission, will of course be subject to the judgment in this case, as also in the main matter of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Sharique Ali & Ors. (cited supra), where the question of constitutionality of Adhiniyams is pending. The parties are agreed that both the matters should be tagged together, and even that matter should be heard in the first week of April, 2009. We accordingly dispose of this stay application in the light of observations made above.

December 18, 2008 7