Holding

The Supreme Court refused to stay the contempt order and directed that the teachers be paid the 5th Pay Commission benefits up to 31 March 2009, subject to the final judgment on the Adhiniyam’s constitutionality.

Summary

The State of Madhya Pradesh filed an application for a stay of a contempt order that directed the payment of benefits under the 5th Pay Commission to teachers in private‑aided schools. The contempt order arose from the State's failure to implement a High Court judgment (Writ Petition No. 2029 of 2000) which had extended revised pay scales to such teachers. The State argued that the constitutional validity of Amendment Act 26 of 2000 to the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha Adhiniyam was pending, and that complying with the contempt order would cause a financial burden. The respondents contended that the teachers were already entitled to the benefits and that withholding them would be unfair. The Supreme Court declined to stay the contempt order, directing that the teachers be paid the 5th Pay Commission benefits up to 31 March 2009, subject to the final decision on the Adhiniyam’s validity. The matter was ordered to be heard together with the main constitutional challenge in April 2009.

Issues considered

Whether the contempt order directing payment of 5th Pay Commission benefits to teachers should be stayed pending adjudication of the constitutional validity of Amendment Act 26 of 2000 to the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha Adhiniyam.

Subjects

constitutional validityamendment actgrant-in-aidpay commissioncontemptstayMadhya PradeshteachersAdhiniyamArticle 14Article 21

Judgment

[2008] 17 S.C.R 1292

A STATE OF M:P. & ORS.
v. ~- .
V.V. ASHTHANA & ORS.
(I.A.No. 4 of 2008)
DECEMBER 18, 2008
.B
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.]

INTERLOCUTORY ORDER: f _:_,_
Interim stay - Matters regarding constitutional validity of
c MP (Amendment) Act 26 of 2000 relating to reduction of grant-
in-aid pending before Supreme Court·- SLP against ofcler of
High Court in contempt petition directing to comply with the
order granting benefits of 5th Pay Commission to teachers
pending - Stay of the order of High Court sought- ~HELD: It
D will be better if the teachers. are paid the benefits of the 5th
Pay Commission upto 31.3.2009- This payment of additional
benefit as per the 5th Pay Commission, will be subject to the ;>'-
judgment in the instant case, as also in the main matter where
the question of constitutionality of Adhiniyams is pending.
E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 4 of 2008.
IN
Special Leave Petition No. 19188 of 2008.
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 16.6.2008 of
F the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Contempt
Petition No. 339 of 2008. t .J(

U.lrJ. Lalit, S.S. Banthia, Vikas Upadhyay for the Petitioner.
Rajeev Dhawan, Rekha Pandey, Ambika Dass for the
G Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered : ""
ORDER
1. State of Madhya Pradesh, the original petitioner in the '
.. H 1292
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. V.V. ASHTHANA & ORS. 1293

Special Leave Petition, has renewed its.prayer for Stay. In the. A
above said Special Leave Petition, a notice is already issued
,. on the limited point as to whether any direction can be issued
I
in a proceeding arising out of contempt. The impugned order .
in the Special Leave Petition is passed by the Learned Single .
Judge of the High Court in the contempt jurisdiction on a B
petition having been filed before him by the 30 school teachers
complaining of the non-compliance of Order dated 29.1.2003
passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 2029 of 2000.
' The Learned Single Judge, while disposing of the said Writ
_____/
~. Petition No. 2029 of 2000 had observed as under:-
"Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances
c
and the legal position that emerges from the series of
judgments referred to hereinbefore, there cannot be any
doubt that in the present case also, the petitioners are
entitled to benefit of revised pay scales as is being granted
to other similarly situated teachers, who are employed in .D
the Govt. Institute. The respondents cannot deny the
aforesaid be,nefit to the teachers working in the institute.
receiving grant-in-aid. As has been considered in the
"' cases referred to hereinabove and in particular in the case
of Ashok Kumar Gupta (supra), wherein Rule 33(1) of the E
Adhiniyam of 1978 was considered in view of the
aforesaid position and the direction given by this Court in
---(
\.
various cases, the present petition is also allowed. The
I respondenVState is directed to extend the same benefit
to the petitioners also in the present case and grant benefit F
of revision of pay scale to the extent as has been directed
by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Suresh
Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and others. Needless to
emphasize that grant of aforesaid benefit shall always be
subject to statut~as is applicable from time to time
in this regard. G

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Respondents are
"' 1
directed to make the payment in accordance with the
aforesaid direction."
The teachers complained that in spite of this order, the H
1294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
, -,
c noted that the entitlement, as was found by the Learned 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
D Single Judge. The matters did not stop hete 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
E 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,
F 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
G 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 "
H
this Court, where this Court had passed an order dated
6.5.2002 in SLP(C) No. 8534 of 2002, issuing notice and "
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. V.V. ASHTHANA & ORS. 1295

staying the operation of the judgment. However, a condition was A
imposed that the State shall continue to give grant-in-aid at the
/ rate of ~0% 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 B
to the respondent teachers within a period of four weeks.
2. It appears that these arrears were paid. The State
Government paid--.all its liabilities even as per the Vth Pay
~ ~ Commission, starting from 1.1.1996 to 31.3.2000, however,
thereafter, the State Government did not pay as per the Vth Pay
c
Commission, and the teachers of the private-aided institutions
got their old pay only, that too at the rate of 50% as ordered by
this Court in SLP(C) No. 8534 of 2002. After considering in
details the subsequent orders passed by the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in Division Bench, which had attained finality by the
orders dated 27.1.2006 and 9.2.2007 passed by this Court, D
the Learned Judge came to the conclusion that the teachers
were entitled to get the benefits of the Vth Pay Commission
-.i.._ since the question of benefits of Vth Pay Commission had
attained the finality before this Court. The Learned Judge,
· dealing with the contempt matter, therefore, ordered to make E
payment of the 50% of the amount calculated on the grant-in-
aid after extending the benefit of the Vth Pay Commission.
---t
3. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Learned Senior Counsel,
appearing on behalf of the respondents, pointed out that the
" question of non-entitlement of the Vth Pay Commission benefits F
on the part of the teachers, could not have been wrecked up
by the Stat~. particularly, in the wake of the fact that the Writ
Petition in their behalf was allowed, and the said judgment was
confirmed in the LPA, and the stay was refused by this Court.
Dr. Dhawan pointed out that even otherwise, it would be unfair G
to deprive the teachers of the benefits of the Vth Pay
.., Commission, particularly, in the wake of the fact that they were
being paid only 50% of the amount, in view of the orders
1 passed by this Court in SLP(C) No. 8534 of 2002 State of
Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Sharique Ali & Ors., wherein the
H
1296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, holding
the Adhiniyams to be constitutional invalid, was pending.
4. Shri U.U. Lalit, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the State Government, however, pointed out that whole
policy of the state Government had been changed and the State
B Government had decided to withdraw the grants in a phased
manner in five years' time and pour all the funds, so saved by
withdrawal of the grants, for the cause of primary education. The
Learned Counsel further pointed out that the basic question of
the payment of grants, itself was not finally decided before this
C Court and was pending, therefore, under such circumstances,
the State Government could not be compelled to take up the
additional burden, created by the Vth Pay Commission. The
Learned Counsel pointed out that if ultimately this Court holds
the Adhiniyam to be valid, then apart from the 50% of the grants,
- which have been ordered to be paid by this Court, even the
D additional amounts required for payments as per the Vth P~y
Commission, would be a total waste and the whole amount will
go into the drain; and thereby, the State Government would
suffer a sei-ious financial debacle~ The Learned Counsel,
therefore, said that the direction given by the Learned Judge
E in the contempt proceedings, is liable to be stayed.
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
F 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
G parties are agreed that both the matters should be tagged
together, and even that matter should be heard in the firs,t week
of April, 2009. We accordingly dispose of this stay application ,.._
in the light of observations made above.
R.P. Application disposed of.
H