Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Das Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10326
1 WP-8323-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 24th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 8323 of 2013
RAM DAS YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Narottam Sharma, Advocate for petitioners.
Ms. Smrati Sharma, Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking for following reliefs :-
"i) the respondents no.1 and 2 may kindly be directed to release aid and pay salary to the petitioners by giving the benefit of two advance increments for having acquired B.Ed. qualification, from the date of appointment/acquiring the qualification.
ii) any other relief including costs which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted."
2. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are working or retired or legal heirs of deceased teachers on the various post of Teachers in different Aided Institutions run by respondent No.3 Society. Since all the petitioners are getting grant in aid from State Government and upto the year 2000, 100% grant-in-aid was given to the schools and after the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10326 2 WP-8323-2013 year 2000, the aid was reduced and now 50% aid is being given as per interim order of Hon'ble Apex Court. It is further submitted that petitioners have acquired B.Ed. while in service or before entering in the service. They have all attained the said qualification on their own cost and not at the expense of State Government and submitted that institution of petitioners are covered under provisions of M.P. Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Anudan Ka Pradaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 ( in short ' the Act of 1978). It is submitted that they are all getting 50% of salary to which they were getting in the year 2000 as per interim order of Hon'ble Apex Court. It is further submitted that State Government had issued orders pertaining to grant of two advance increments to all those teachers who have acquired B.Ed. qualification prior to 16.05.1993 and have acquired the qualification upto 01.03.1999 and submitted that prior to this circular State Government has issued another circular dated 13.05.1994 providing for grant of advance increments to the teachers who acquired B.Ed./BTI while in service. It is further submitted that B.Ed. was not essential qualification for payment like in the case of teachers of Government Institution and B.Ed. was preferential qualification and not as an essential qualification. Some dispute arose about the teachers who had completed B.Ed. prior to entering into the service and matter went uptill the Apex Court and Apex Court in the case of Asha Saxena Vs. State of M.P. & Others, passed in Civil Appeal No.3408/2008, whereby it has been held that said benefit to be payable to those who attained the qualification prior to entry in service also. It is further submitted that respondents have denied benefit on the sole ground that they are teachers of Government Aided NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10326 3 WP-8323-2013 Institutions and not of Government Schools and submitted that action of respondents is discriminatory. It is submitted that as per the revised grant-in- aid Rules of State Government enforced in the year 1979, a vested right was created by Rule 33 to claim the same pay and scale of pay is being paid to the similarly situated teachers in Government Institutions.
3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate submitted that petitioners have no locus standi to file present petition for claiming the benefit in question as they have not submitted any representation before competent authority and all the petitioners were working in Respondent No.3- Institution/Shri Tekchand Jain Vidyapeeth Samiti. Respondent No.3 admittedly a non government private institution is receiving grant-in-aid from State Government and submitted that Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-4 circular/Policy circular dated 26.07.2003 and 13.05.1994 was issued with respect of those teachers who had obtained B.Ed./BTI Degree with permission of the department upto 16.05.1999 or obtained the aforesaid degree from 23.10.1984 till 01.03.1999. Aforesaid policies govern the benefit extendable to purely government teachers working in the Government Schools. All the petitioners are admittedly working in the respondent No.3/ Private Institution, though receiving grant-in-aid and submitted that decision of Asha Saxena(Supra) who was Lecturer in Government Girls Higher Secondary School and therefore, benefit has been extended to Asha Saxena as she was Lecturer in Government Girls Higher Secondary School. While in the present case, all the petitioners are working in private aided institutions, therefore, they are not entitled to get the benefit NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10326 4 WP-8323-2013 at par with Asha Saxena and therefore, submitted that in the Revised rules for grant in aid to non-government educational institutions, 1979 ( in short ' the Rules of 1979) which has been approved by the State Government vide memorandum dated 21.02.1979, nowhere, it is mentioned that benefit of two advance increments for attaining degree of B.Ed. at own cost, benefit in question would be entitled to the teachers working in private aided institutions and submitted that so far as Rule 33(i) of the said rules is concerned, the same prescribe scale of pay to the teachers including head of institution and other employees of educational institution, which is in respect of Government grant, shall be in accordance with law that is sanctioned for the corresponding categories of the employees in the Government Educational institutions and submitted that additional benefit which is being claimed by petitioners could be claimed only for the concerning educational societies and institutions and respondents are not bound to give the benefit of two advance increments at par of Government teachers in the absence of notification, executive instruction or any other policy/circular/law and further submitted that recruitment of present petitioners are quite different than the teachers working in the Government Schools. It is further submitted that teachers working in the grant-in-aid schools cannot claim parity from teachers working in Government Schools. It is submitted that all the petitioners are claiming benefit of two advance increments in view of the order passed in the year 1994 and 2003 by the State Government, but all the petitioners have approached before this Court in the year 2013 after a long delay. Hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed as suffers from delay and NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10326 5 WP-8323-2013 latches. It is also submitted that in view of the ratio decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of M.P. & Anr. Vs. Sharique A. Ali & Others , passed in Civil Appeal No.6362 of 2004, the teachers working in the private aided institutions are extendable benefit of salary as held by Hon'ble Apex Court and further submitted that Division Bench of this Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Dwivedi and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, 1993 MPLJ 663 in paragraph 17 and 18 held that petitioner is not entitled to claim benefit of two advance increments on the basis of B.Ed/BTI and further submitted that as per definition clause of The Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Anudan Ka Pradaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 'the institution' means a non Government School or non Government educational institution for higher education for the time being receiving maintenance grant from the State Government or from the M.P. Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog and there is specific mention but it is not including institutions established, administered or managed by Central Government or State Government or local authority and submitted that therefore, these institutions cannot be equated with school of State Government and further submitted that salary has also been defined in the Act of 1978 and as per definition the salary means salary and other allowances payable to teacher or an employee at the rate as may be notified by the Institution . It is submitted that as per Act of 1978, petitioners are entitled only salary which has been notified by Institution and petitioners can only be entitled for any extra/special benefit only on the basis, if policy has been made for the respondent No.3/Institution for grant-in-aid non Government educational institution. NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10326 6 WP-8323-2013
4. Heard both the parties and perused the record.
5. Admittedly, Respondent No.3 is a non government private institution receiving grant-in-aid from State Government and submitted that Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-4 circular/Policy circular dated 26.07.2003 and 13.05.1994 was issued with respect of those teachers who had obtained B.Ed./BTI Degree with permission of the department upto 16.05.1999 or obtained the aforesaid degree from 23.10.1984 till 01.03.1999. Aforesaid policies govern the benefit extendable to purely government teachers working in the Government Schools. All the petitioners are admittedly working in the respondent No.3/ Private Institution, though receiving grant- in-aid and submitted that decision of Asha Saxena who was Lecturer in Government Girls Higher Secondary School, the benefit has been extended to Asha Saxena as she was Lecturer in Government Girls Higher Secondary School. While in the present case, all the petitioners are working in private aided institutions, therefore, they are not entitled to get the benefit at par with Asha Saxena and therefore, submitted that in the Revised rules for grant in aid to non Government educational institution, 1979 which has been approved by the State Government vide memorandum dated 21.02.1979, nowhere it is mentioned that benefit of two advance increments for attaining degree of B.Ed. at own cost, benefit in question, would be entitled to the teachers working in private aided institutions and submitted that so far as Rule 33(i) of the aforesaid Rule is concerned, the same prescribe scale of pay to the teachers including head of institution and other employees of educational institution, which is in respect of Government grant, shall be in NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10326 7 WP-8323-2013 accordance with law that is sanctioned for the corresponding categories of the employees in the Government educational institutions and that additional benefit which is being claimed by petitioners could be claimed only for the concerning educational societies and institutions and respondents are not bound to give the benefit of two advance increments at par of Government teachers in the absence of notification, executive instruction or any other policy/circular/law. The recruitment of present petitioners are quite different than the teachers working in the Government schools and teachers working in the grant-in-aid schools cannot claim parity from teachers working in Government schools. All the petitioners are claiming benefit of two advance increments in view of the order passed in the year 1994 and 2003 by the State Government, but all the petitioners have approached before this Court in the year 2013 after a long delay. Hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed as suffers from delay and latches. In view of the ratio decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of M.P. & Anr. Vs. Sharique A. Ali & Others, passed in Civil Appeal No.6362 of 2004, the teachers working in the private aided institutions are extendable benefit of salary as held by Hon'ble Apex Court and further Division Bench of this Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Dwivedi and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, 1993 MPLJ 663 as per ration decided in paragraph 17 and 18 petitioner is not entitled to claim benefit of two advance increments on the basis of B.Ed/BTI and as per definition clause of The Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Anudan Ka Pradaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 'the institution' means a non Government School or non Government Educational Institution for higher NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10326 8 WP-8323-2013 education for the time being receiving maintenance grant from the State Government or from the M.P. Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog and there is specific mention but it is not including institutions established, administered or managed by Central Government or State Government or local authority a n d therefore, these institutions cannot be equated with school of State Government and salary has also been defined in the 1978 Act and as per definition the salary means salary and other allowances payable to teacher or an employee at the rate as may be notified by the Institution. It is submitted that as per the Act of 1978, petitioners are entitled only salary which has been notified by Institution and petitioners can only be entitled for any extra/special benefit only on the basis, if policy has been made for the respondent No.3/Institution for grant-in-aid Non Government Educational Institution.
6. The relevant part of the Act of 1978 is being reproduced hereinunder :-
(e) "Institution" means a non Government School or non government Educational Institution for higher education for the time being receiving maintenance grant from the State Government or from the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog as the case may be, established; administered and managed by a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (No. 44 of 1973) but does not include an institution established, administered and managed by -
(i) the Central government; or
(ii) the State Government; or NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10326 9 WP-8323-2013
(iii) a local authority; or
(iv) any agency managed, controlled, approved or sponsored by the Central Government or the State Government, as the State Government may, by notification, specify;
(v) a non-trading corporation formed and registered under the Madhya Pradesh Non- Trading Corporation Act, 1962 (No.20 of 1962) or deemed to have been registered thereunder;
(j)'Salary' means the salary and other allowances payable to a teacher' or an employee at the rate as may be notified by' the institution."
7. It is settled position that scope of judicial review of government Policy is well defined by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balco Employees Union BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) Vs.Union of India reported in 2002 2 SCC 333 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"93. Wisdom and advisability of economic policies are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless it can be demonstrated that the policy is contrary to any statutory provision or the Constitution. In other words, it is not for the courts to consider relative merits of different economic policies and consider whether a wiser or better one can be evolved. For testing the correctness of a policy, the appropriate forum is Parliament and not the courts. Here the policy was tested and the motion defeated in the Lok Sabha on 01/03/2001.
98. In the case of a policy decision on economic matters, the courts should be very circumspect in conducting any enquiry or investigation and must be most reluctant to impugn the judgment NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10326 10 WP-8323-2013 of the experts who may have arrived at a conclusion unless the court is satisfied that there is illegality in the decision itself."
3. In the case of Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain reported in (2007) 4SCC 737 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"16. The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review."
8. In Asif Hameed v. State of J & K, 1989 reported in Supp. (2) SCC 364 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has as under:
"19. When a State action is challenged, the function of the court is to examine the action in accordance with Law and to determine whether the legislature or the executive has acted within the powers and functions assigned under the Constitution and if not, the court must strike down the action. While doing so the court must remain within its self- imposed limits. The court sits in judgment on the action of a co-ordinate branch of the Government. While exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, the court is not an appellate authority. The Constitution does not permit the court to direct or advise the executive in matters of policy or to sermonize qua any matter which under the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10326 11 WP-8323-2013 Constitution lies within the sphere of legislature of executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory powers "
9. In Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (1990) 3 SCC 223, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"57. Judicial review is not concerned with matters of economic policy. The Court does not substitute its judgment for that of the legislature or its agents as to matters within the province of either. The Court does not supplant the "feel of the expert" by its own views. When the legislature acts within the sphere of its authority and delegates power to an agent, it may empower the agent to make findings of fact which are conclusive provided such findings satisfy the test of reasonableness. In all such cases, judicial inquiry is confined to the question whether the findings of fact are reasonably based on evidence and whether such findings are consistent with the laws of the land. As rated by Jagannatha Shetty, J. in M/s. Gupta Sugar Works, (supra):
....the court does not act like a chartered accountant nor acts like an income tax officer. The court is not concerned with any individual case or any particular problem. The court only examines whether the price determined was with due regard to considerations provided by the statute. And whether extraneous matters have been excluded from determination."
10. For ready reference paragraph 17 and 18 of the judgment passed in the case of Suresh Kumar Dwivedi(Supra) is being reproduced hereinunder :-
"17. In our opinion, no direction can be issued to the State Government in respect of the aforesaid claims, as it cannot be NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10326 12 WP-8323-2013 disputed that implementation of the aforesaid claims is a policy matter involving heavy financial burden. The teachers of the aided institutions are not appointed under the State Government. There is no relationship of master and servant between the State Government and the teachers. There is no provision in the Act or the rules applicable to such teachers or employees for payment of the aforesaid benefits. It is not clear how the State Government is accountable for extending such benefits and facilities. Since it is a policy matter involving financial burden, it is not the function of this Court to compel the Government to accord sanction, as the Court does not substitute its judgment for that of the legislature or its agents as to matters within the province of either. See Union of India v. Tejram Parashramji Bombhate , (1991) 3 SCC 11. The Haryana Teachers' cases relied by petitioners are of no help, as they relate to parity in pay scales only, which was recommended by the expert body, like Kothari Commission, and the Haryana Government after the report of the Pay Commission, expressed its readiness and willingness to implement the same at par so far as the salaries and additional dearness allowance, etc. were concerned. There too, the benefits of C.C.A., medical allowance, pension and gratuity were not extended.
18. The petitioners have claimed time-bound advancement to the recognised teachers or employees in accordance with Annexure P/7, dated 14-2-1986, and Annexure P/8, dated 11-7-1987, which have been made applicable to aided schools, but, so far, benefits of the same have not been given to the aided schools. As it involves financial implication, we are not inclined to make any direction. However, it is expected from the Government to consider the claim of time-bound advancement in the pay scale in the light of Annexures P/7 and P/8 and in view of Annexure P/5, R F- 85 whereby time-bound scheme has been implemented in Sagar Division to aided schools."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10326 13 WP-8323-2013
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion and observations, present petition being devoid of merit and substance is hereby dismissed.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Digitally signed by ROHIT SHARMA
ROHIT
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
R PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=80fa12cbdc4eff8599ee9661f416e13bf c369c80ba5b9eaac85aeede2b107b1e, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH SHARMA BENCH AT GWALIOR,CID - 7063186, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=71ef33cb088d47b0d791fb798fa 8918ea7f85b06e09fb88c9ce747e8639f9de8, cn=ROHIT SHARMA Date: 2026.04.06 18:32:22 +05'30'