Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh vs State Of M.P. Through General … on 5 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6093
1 WP-1627-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 5 th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 1627 of 2020
MAHESH
Versus
STATE OF M.P. THROUGH GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Vikas Jaiswal, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Sunit Kapoor, counsel for the respondents/State.
ORDER
[1] Petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated
25.09.2019 passed by respondent No.1 whereby they have been denied the benefit
of 6th Pay Commission from 01.01.2006 to the employees of Janpad Panchayat
and Jila Panchayat.
[2] The petitioner was appointed into the Jila Panchayat Khargone. The
petitioner approached before this Court by way of Writ Petition No.2494/2001 for
the grant of benefit of the 5th Pay Commission. Vide order dated 20.06.2001, the
Writ Petition was allowed with a direction to the respondents to grant the benefit.
[3] Vide order dated 21.07.2010, the Panchayat and Rural Development
Department directed all Chief Executive Officers of Jila Panchayat to grant the
benefit of the 6th Pay Commission to the employees of DRDA as well as
employees of Panchayat. Vide order dated 10.05.2018, the benefit of 7th Pay
Commission, dearness allowance to the employees working in the Jila Panchayat
and Janpad Panchayat. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the pay fixation of the
petitioner was done on 16.10.2018.
[4] The petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents for extending
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 3/12/2026
6:30:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6093
2 WP-1627-2020
the benefit of the 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 i.e. at par with the State
Government employees, who had already been given the said benefit from
01.01.2006. Petitioner approached before this Court by way of Writ Petition
No.186/2015 for grant of 6th Pay Commission which was disposed of vide order
dated 26.10.2016 with direction to consider the representation, vide annexure P/1
the respondents have rejected the representation that the State Government vide
order dated 08.08.2013 directed to give the 6th Pay Commission 01.04.2013 to the
employees of Jila Panchayat and Janpad Panchayat and Jila Panchayat is not
having any additional source of income, hence claim of benefit from 01.01.2006
cannot be allowed, hence, present petition before this Court.
[5] Initially, the respondents filed a very brief reply by submitting that vide
order dated 08.09.2008, the State Government directed all the Chief Executive
Officers of Jila Panchayat and Janpad Panchayat to grant the benefit of 5th Pay
Commission to the employees of Jila Panchayat and Janpad Panchayat from
01.04.2006 and thereafter vide order dated 08.08.2013 further directed to grant the
6th Pay Commission w.e.f.01.04.2013 with the rider that the State Government
would not provide any separate funds in respect of such grant. The services of the
petitioner was governed by Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Services (Recruitment and
General Condition of Service) Rules, 1999 (henceforth ” Rules, 1999”), they
cannot claim their eligibility for 6th Pay Commission like their counter part in
State Government employee.
[6] This Court has directed the State Government to seek instruction as to what
is the position about the implementation of the 6th Pay Commission in other Gram
Panchayats, Janpad Panchayats and Jila Panchayats of M.P. to examine disparity
in the date of grant of benefit of 6th Pay Commission amongst the employees of
Panchayats. That Shri Malay Shrivastava, Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayat
and Rural Development Department, Bhopal filed an affidavit to the effect that the
Finance Department had granted approval for grant of benefit of revision of pay by
accepting the recommendation of 5th and 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. 06.07.2013.
He was directed to seek instructions under which provision of law, the State
Government gets authority to decide the date of implementation 6th Pay
Commission for the Panchayat employees. The notification dated 28.02.2009
whereby M.P. Revision Rules,2009 were notified by the Finance Department,
Government of Madhya Pradesh w.e.f.01.01.2006 under the power conferred
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 3/12/2026
6:30:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6093
3 WP-1627-2020
under Article 309 of the Constitution of India hence under which authority
Government decided that date of implementation for Panchayats’ employees.
Appreciations & Conclusion :
[7] The core issue in this Writ Petition which requires consideration by this Court
is “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?”
Another issue which is to be examined is “under which authority the State
Government is competent to fix the date of implementation for the members of
Panchayat services ?”
[8] 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
243 (d) “Panchayat” means an institution by whatever name called of self-
government constituted under article 243B, for the rural areas. Art. 243B says
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. 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 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 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. 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. 243J provides an
audit of accounts of Panchayat that too by making the law by legislature.243K
deals with the election. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 3/12/2026
6:30:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6093
4 WP-1627-2020
made by the legislature of the State.
[9] 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 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.
[10] Counsel for the respondents/State submits that the State being a welfare
State decided to give benefit of the 5th and 6th Pay Commission subject to the
availability of funds in head of salary and that too absence of any legal right to
claim revision of pay. According to the State Government, the Panchayat has been
given the power to make recruitment under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Bharti
Tatha Sewa ki Samanya Sharte) Niyam, 1999 and pay salaries and other monetary
benefits from the fund of the Panchayat. It is further submitted that if Jila
Panchayat and Janpad Panchayat which are independent bodies are willing to give
enhanced pay considering their financial condition may grant such benefit for
which the State shall have no objection. If that be so, the State Government has no
authority to fix the date for the grant of the benefit of the 5th or 6th pay
commission. It should have been left to the discretion of the Panchayat to decide
its own dates for the grant of pay revision or accept the recommendation of the 5th
and 6th Pay Commission. The Madhya Pradesh Janpad Budget Anuman Niyam,
1997 is already enforced merely because employees are working in the affair in the
Panchayat cannot be denied the benefit of pay revision on the basis of profit and
loss. No State Government submit its budget in profits despite that the
Government grants all the monetary benefit to its employees like pay revision,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 3/12/2026
6:30:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6093
5 WP-1627-2020
dearness allowance etc. by creating separate fund for it. At the time of granting
benefits to the Panchayat employees, the shortage of funds and budget should not
be the criteria. Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the Division
Bench in the case of Janpad Panchayat and Jila Panchayat Karmachari Sangh and
Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1992 MPLJ 804 wherein the Writ
Petition filed for similar relief had already been dismissed by this Court at the
motion stage. The said Writ Petition was filed relying on the judgment passed in
the case of State of Gujarat v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni, (1983) 2 SCC 33: AIR
1984 SC 161. The Division Bench in the case of Janpad Panchayat and Jila
Panchayat Karmachari Sangh (supra) held that the employees of Panchayat are not
government servants merely because the Acts gives power to State Government to
prescribe the conditions of service of employees of a Panchayat constituted under
the Act, the servants covered by such rules do not become servants of the
Government. Government is only a rule-making authority in such a case. Reliance
has also been placed in the case of State of West Bengal and Another Vs. West
Bengal Registration Copywriters Association and another reported in (2009) 14
SCC 132 in which it has been held that the Panchayat service constituted under
Section 203 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1962 was a civil service of the State
and members of the service were government servants but in State of Madhya
Pradesh there is no such Section 203 of MP Panchayat Raj and Gram Swaraj Act
1993, therefore, this judgment will not help the petitioners.
[11] So far as the judgment Janpad Panchayat (supra) is concerned, this
judgment was passed when the Panchayat Act, 1962 was in enforce and its
provisions were considered while dismissing the writ petitions but now the MP
Panchayat Raj and Gram Swaraj Act 1993 has come into force by repelling the
Act, 1962 and Act, 1992. Section 53 of the Act, 1993 defines the power of State
Government in relation to the functions of Panchayats. Section 53 (1) (b) of Act,
1993 says that the State Government may, by notification, endow Panchayats at
the appropriate level with powers and responsibilities for the selection,
recruitment, appointment and management of any cadre or cadres of employees
required for the efficient implementation of schemes, subject to the staffing pattern
approved by the State Government and such other conditions as it may deem fit
but section 53 (1) (a) of Act, 1993 says that State Government, the Panchayat at
the appropriate level shall have the powers and authority as may be necessary to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 3/12/2026
6:30:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6093
6 WP-1627-2020
enable them to function as institutions of self Government. Section 51 and Section
52 deals with entrustment of certain functions of State Government to Janpad
Panchayat and Jila Panchayat and it says that the State Government may entrust, to
a [Janpad Panchayat or Jila Panchayat] functions in relation to any matter to which
the executive authority of the State Government extends or in respect of functions
which have been entrusted to the State Government by the Central Government
and further says that Subject to the provisions of this Act and rules made
thereunder and subject to policy, directions, instructions, general or special orders
as may be issued by the State Government from time to time in respect of
preparation of budget, administer and control the employees appointed and posted
in Panchayats including staff transferred by the State Government to the
Panchayats, thus the State Government has taken complete control on the function
of Panchayat and Panchayat is bound to follow the each and every direction issued
by the State Government. Every power conferred under the Panchayat Act starts
with words that are subject to the Rules as the State Government may make or
subject to any Act direction, or orders issued by the State Government, therefore,
the State Government virtually controls all the Panchayats in respect of budget,
funding, aid, expenditure, collection of tax, recruitment, condition of service and
pay revision etc.
[12] Relevant para in the case of West Bengal and another (supra) is reproduced
below:-
117. This takes us to State of Gujarat v. Raman Lal
Keshav Lal Soni [(1983) 2 SCC 33 : 1983 SCC (L&S)
231] . The question, which fell for consideration was as to
whether personnel drawn from different sources, namely,
government departments, as well as, the local authorities
or municipalities merged together to constitute a single
integrated civil service under the State by a legislative
enactment, would become the State Government
employees, irrespective of their original status. The
question was answered in the affirmative.
118. Raman Lal case [(1983) 2 SCC 33 : 1983 SCC
(L&S) 231] was very heavily relied upon by Shri Mitra,
learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, since the endSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 3/12/2026
6:30:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:60937 WP-1627-2020
result went in favour of the employees and they were held
to be holding the civil posts. In para 27, the Court
observed: (SCC p. 49) “27. … We do not propose and
indeed it is neither politic nor possible to lay down any
definitive test to determine when a person may be said to
hold a civil post under the Government. Several factors
may indicate the relationship of master and servant. None
may be conclusive. On the other hand, no single factor
may be considered absolutely essential. The presence of
all or some of the factors, such as, the right to select for
appointment, the right to appoint, the right to terminate
the employment, the right to take other disciplinary
action, the right to prescribe the conditions of service, the
nature of the duties performed by the employee, the right
to control the employee’s manner and method of the work,
the right to issue directions and the right to determine and
the source from which wages or salary are paid and a host
of such circumstances, may have to be considered to
determine the existence of the relationship of master and
servant. In each case, it is a question of fact whether a
person is a servant of the State or not.” (emphasis
supplied).
Reference was made to Guru Gobinda Basu v. Sankari
Prasad Ghosal [AIR 1964 SC 254] , State of U.P. v. Audh
Narain Singh [AIR 1965 SC 360] , Kanak Chandra Dutta
[AIR 1967 SC 884] , D.R. Gurushantappa v. Abdul
Khuddus Anwar [(1969) 1 SCC 466] and S.L. Agarwal v.
Hindustan Steel Ltd. [(1970) 1 SCC 177].
119. In para 31, this Court in Raman Lal case [(1983) 2
SCC 33 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 231] noted that the Panchayat
service constituted under Section 203 of the Gujarat
Panchayats Act, 1962 was a civil service of the State and
members of the service were government servants. It was
noted that this question was decided by the High Court of
Gujarat more than 15 years back in G.L. Shukla v. State
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 3/12/2026
6:30:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6093
8 WP-1627-2020
of Gujarat [ILR 1967 Guj 560] by Hon’ble Bhagwati, J.
(as he then was).
120. In G.L. Shukla case [ILR 1967 Guj 560] Hon’ble
Bhagwati, J. observed:
“The mode of recruitment, the conditions of service and
matters relating to appointments, transfers and promotions
of persons employed in the Panchayat service as also
disciplinary action against them are all determined by the
State Government and that is consistent only with the
State being the master in the entire Panchayat service.
The mandatory provision for promotion from Panchayat
service to State service which is required to be made in
the rules also shows that both the services are services of
the State. There could be no question of promotion from
one service to another if the masters in the two services
were different. Then it would be a case of termination of
one service and appointment of another….”
The learned Judge further said:
“It is not possible to believe that the officer or servant
could have been intended by the legislature to be treated
like a chattel which can be tossed about from one master
to another. The only reasonable way of looking at the
matter seems to be and that conclusion is inevitable on the
language of these provisions, that the Panchayat service is
a civil service of State like the State service and since both
the services are civil services of the State with the State as
the master, an officer or servant can be allocated from the
State service to the Panchayat service and reallocated
from the Panchayat service to the State service….”
121. Considering other provisions, ultimately, this Court
in Raman Lal case [(1983) 2 SCC 33 : 1983 SCC (L&S)
231] held the employees to be belonging to the
government service and found that there existed the
master-and-servant relationship.
[13] In the State of Madhya Pradesh also, the State Government has control to
make rules and regulations for recruitment in Panchayats. The services provided to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 3/12/2026
6:30:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6093
9 WP-1627-2020
the citizens residing within a rural area, the Panchayats are constituted under
Article 243B of the Constitution of India, therefore, those benefits which the State
Government provides to all citizens of Madhya Pradesh through various
departments by recruiting employees, the same facilities/services have been given
by the Panchayats through its employees. In India there is a 3 tier system of
Government, the Panchayat is the lowest self-governed body having elected
members, a Chairman, President to make decisions in respect of their territory but
so far as employees are concerned, they are at par with the State Government as
they are discharging the same duties one is being State Government and another
other is being municipal employees. The Panchayats, Nagar Parishads Municipal
Councils and Corporations all render common services to the public on behalf of
the Government, therefore, the employees of the Panchayat cannot be
discriminated with the State Government employee or other local body employees.
The Apex Court has rightly said that the employees of Panchayat are also public
servants and State Government employees. The Provisions of the Gujarat
Panchayat Act and the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Act are identical. Whenever the
State Government recommends the pay revision, it should be applied to all
employees of the State Government or Panchayat employees from the same date.
There cannot be a reason for fixing two dates for two sets of employees only on the
grounds of the profit and loss budget of Panchayat. If the Panchayat is lacking its
funds to run, the State Government may increase aid. The benefits pay, revisions
and allowances should not depend on the profit or loss of any statutory body.
[14] The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.2182 of 2023
(State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Santosh Singh and Others) has held as
under:-
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that
the learned Single Judge after framing aforesaid two issues and
taking into consideration the constitution of provision as well as
various judgments held that the employees of the Jila Panchayat
and Gram Panchayat could not have been discriminated. Further
we find that no such submission was made before the learned
Single Judge regarding the decision of the State Government
dated 6/8/2013. Even otherwise, the same cannot be a ground for
denying the benefits to the writ petitioners and on the saidSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 3/12/2026
6:30:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6093
10 WP-1627-2020
ground, the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be found to
be falted. It is relevant to mention here that it is not the case of
the State Government where the State Government had not
approved the decision of the Panchayats to grant the benefit of
6th pay commission to its employees. They approved the said
decision but only directed to implement it from a subsequent date
after the date from which the State Government employees were
granted. No reasonable ground has been ascribed in the reply for
not granting the said benefit from the same date. 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 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.
13. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the decision of the appellant to
grant the said pay from the different date from which the State
Government employees have been granted is arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and principle of “Equal
Pay for Equal Work” and, therefore, we do not find any error in
the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
[15] In view of the above, Writ Petition is allowed. Petitioner and all other
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 3/12/2026
6:30:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6093
11 WP-1627-2020
Panchayat employees/ staff be given the benefit of the 6th Pay Commission w.e.f.
from 01.01.2006 as granted to the State Government Employees. No order as to
cost.
(JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE
Arun/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 3/12/2026
6:30:47 PM
