Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kishan Pilley vs Mr. Iqbal Singh Bains Chief Secretary on 26 March, 2026
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
ConC No.3350 of 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CONC No. 3350 of 2018
(KISHAN PILLEY AND OTHERS Vs MR. IQBAL SINGH BAINS CHIEF SECRETARY AND OTHERS )
Dated : 26-03-2026
Shri Naman Nagrath - Senior Advocate with Shri Himanshu Mishra,
Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Prashant Singh - Advocate General with Shri B. D. Singh,
Additional Advocate General for the respondents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This contempt petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of the order dated 28.04.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.7058 of 2016 wherein the writ petition was disposed off with the following directions:
"21. Looking to the aforesaid facts of the case and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association (Supra), and other High Courts in the case of State of West Bengal & others (supra) and in the case of High Court Employees's Association, Tripura (supra) and also keeping in view the fact that High Court had already made recommendations to the State Government for implementation of Sheety Pay Commission to the employees of the High Court as back as on 10.12.2007 and on 16/19.09.2008, in our opinion it would be just and proper to direct the respondents to grant one additional increment to the petitioners, who were working below the grade pay of Rs.3600/- w.e.f. 01.04.2003 and two additional increments to the remaining petitioners, who were working in the grade pay of Rs.3600/- w.e.f. 01.04.2003. The petitioners would be eligible to get arrears of salary. Arrears of salary be paid within period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Respondents No.2 and 3 are further directed to grant, sanction and release necessary fund to meet the contingent requirement within the period as mentioned above.
22. So far as relief in regard to grant of higher pay scale and allowances are concerned, in view of the principle of law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the matter of State of U.P. and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10-04-2026 13:26:14 ConC No.3350 of 2018 2 another vs. C.L. Agrawal and another reported in (1997) 5 SCC 1, this Court could not issue any direction for grant of pay scale. However, keeping in view the fact that the matter of pay scale and allowances of the employees of the High Court is pending before the State Government since 27.6.2015, the respondents are directed to finalize the same within a period of four months. While considering the recommendations, the State shall take into consideration the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and another (supra)."
2. Various orders have been passed by this Court in the contempt petition particularly a detailed order was passed on 05.09.2019 by the Division Bench of this Court making a specific observation in para 17 thereafter granting six months' time to the State for making compliance. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:-
"17. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, some compliance are still to be made, however, purging to any of the non-applicant in this case is unjustified to reach a logical conclusion to carry out the objective and directions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and another vs. S.B. Vohra and others reported in (2004) 2 SCC 150 and State of U.P. and another vs. C.L. Agrawal and another reported in (1997) 5 SCC 1. In such circumstances, we adjourn this case for a period of six months and during the said period, compliance of following directions shall be made by the non-applicants :-
(1) Petitioners/employees shall submit a detailed representation within two weeks claiming upgradation of the pay scales and allowances at par to the employees of other High Courts in the light of the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and another vs. S.B. Vohra and others reported in (2004) 2 SCC 150 and State of U.P. and another vs. C.L. Agrawal and another reported in (1997) 5 SCC 1 and the letter of Government of India, Ministry of Law & Justice (Department of Justice) dated 18.5.2004 regarding the amendment in the "The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Services (Recruitment, General Conditions of Services, Conduct, Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2017" for the reasons so mentioned therein.
(2) On receiving such representation within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, it shall be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice by the Registrar General for amendment in "The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Services (Recruitment, General Conditions of Services, Conduct, Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2017" as proposed by the State Government regarding upgradation of the scales of pay and allowances in the respective Schedules.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10-04-2026 13:26:14 ConC No.3350 of 2018 3 (3) Thereafter, the Committee may be requested for the amendment in the upgradation of pay scales comparing the grant of upgradation for pay scales and allowances by the other High Courts and submit a proposal for amendment in "The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Services (Recruitment, General Conditions of Services, Conduct, Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2017" for notification by the State Government as per the approval of Hon'ble the Governor within the period of three months.
(4) On receiving the said proposal by the Registry under the directions of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, it be notified in a Gazette by the Government within one month.
(5) After notification, the benefits of the upgraded pay scales and allowances as proposed by way of an amendment shall be payable to the employees with retrospective date or as proposed in the amendment and notified in the Schedule of the Rules."
3. The Chief Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh was impleaded as a party respondent in the matter vide order dated 13.12.2021 with the following observations that "on hearing learned counsels, we do not find it appropriate that all the present respondents are necessary for the adjudication of this petition. It would be suffice if the Chief Secretary, State of Madhya Pradesh is made as a respondent" and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent had submitted that the order will be completely complied with by 10.01.2022. His statement was placed on record. It was further observed that if there is no compliance, then the matter shall be listed on 10.01.2022 for framing of charges and the Chief Secretary was directed to remain present in the Court in case of non-compliance of the undertaking given by him in the Court.
4. Thereafter, a compliance report dated 07.01.2022 vide document No. 248 of 2022 was submitted which was subsequently withdrawn vide order dated 10.01.2022. Thereafter vide order dated 31.01.2022, the Division Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10-04-2026 13:26:14 ConC No.3350 of 2018 4 Bench of this Court was pleased to constitute a committee consisting of the Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh; the Principal Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh; the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh and the Additional Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh to carry out the entire exercise and to submit a report as early as possible to put an end the issue at large.
5. Thereafter vide order dated 22.05.2024 on the request of the State Government, one more opportunity was granted to ensure compliance of the order dated 28.04.2017 passed in W.P.No.7058 of 2016. It was observed in the said order that at least three undertakings have been given with regard to compliance of the order, but there has been no compliance. Thereafter vide order dated 03.07.2024, this Court had observed that this contempt petition is pending for last six years and many deliberations have been made during pendency of 6 to 7 years including grant of last opportunity on 22.05.2024. As the order was not complied with, the Chief Secretary, State of Madhya Pradesh was directed to remain present virtually before this Court and in pursuance to which, the Chief Secretary appeared before this Court and she was made aware of the situation that the order passed by the writ Court way back on 28.04.2017 remains uncompiled with. Last report was submitted in the months of April and May, 2022, yet the State Government has not yet Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10-04-2026 13:26:14 ConC No.3350 of 2018 5 awakened from its stupor, and the Chief Secretary was granted last opportunity to go through the file and make stand of the State Government clear and the matter was posted for 04.07.2024. On 04.07.2024, a detailed order has been passed by the Division Bench of this Court observing as under:-
"On the direction of this Court, Chief Secretary of State of Madhya Pradesh - Smt. Veera Rana has appeared virtually and has been heard.
2. The Chief Secretary seeks further time to comply with the directions contained in Paragraph 22 of the order dated 28.04.2017 passed in W.P. No.7058/2016 (Kishan Pilley and others vs. State of M.P. and others) whereby this Court had directed thus:
"22. So far as relief in regard to grant of higher pay scale and allowances are concerned, in view of the principle of law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the matter of State of U.P. and another vs C.L. Agrawal and another reported in (1997) 5 SCC 1, this Court could not issue any direction for grant of pay scale. However, keeping in view the fact that the matter of pay scale and allowances of the employees of the High Court is pending before the State Government since 27.6.2015, the respondents are directed to finalize the same within a period of four months. While considering the recommendations, the State shall take into consideration the principle of law laid down by the apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and another (supra)."
3. The Chief Secretary was also apprised of subsequent order passed by this Court on 05.09.2019 in this Contempt Petition where this Court while considering all the aspects of the matter and with a view to resolve the stalemate, had directed thus:
(1) Petitioners/employees shall submit a detailed representation within two weeks claiming upgradation of the pay scales and allowances at par to the employees of other High Courts in the light of the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and another vs. S.B. Vohra and others reported in (2004) 2 SCC 150 and State of U.P. and another vs. C.L. Agrawal and another reported in (1997) 5 SCC 1 and the letter of Government of India, Ministry of Law & Justice (Department of Justice) dated 18.5.2004 regarding the amendment in the "The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Services (Recruitment, General Conditions of Services, Conduct, Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2017" for the reasons so mentioned therein. (2) On receiving such representation within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, it shall be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice by the Registrar General for amendment in "The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Services (Recruitment, General Conditions of Services, Conduct, Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2017" as proposed by the State Government regarding upgradation of the scales of pay and allowances in the respective Schedules.
(3) Thereafter, the Committee may be requested for the amendment in the upgradation of pay scales comparing the grant of upgradation for pay scales and allowances by the other High Courts and submit a proposal for amendment in "The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Services (Recruitment, General Conditions of Services, Conduct, Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10-04-2026 13:26:14 ConC No.3350 of 2018 6 2017" for notification by the State Government as per the approval of Hon'ble the Governor within the period of three months.
(4) On receiving the said proposal by the Registry under the directions of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, it be notified in a Gazette by the Government within one month.
(5) After notification, the benefits of the upgraded pay scales and allowances as proposed by way of an amendment shall be payable to the employees with retrospective date or as proposed in the amendment and notified in the Schedule of the Rules.
4. It is quite unfortunate to note that the State is sitting tight over the matter since last seven years after passing of order dated 28.04.2017 in WP. No.7058/2016 and since last five years after passing of the order dated 05.09.2019. This contempt petition was adjourned on several occasions for one pretext or the other.
5. The Chief Secretary was further apprised of the fact that the High Court had recommended a particular pay-scale for employees of different cadres right from Class IV to Class I in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which is pending before the State Government for consideration for notifying the revised salary, if approved by Governor of Madhya Pradesh, since nearly ten years.
5.1 What is disturbing in this case is that the State Government is indulging in procrastination for reasons attributed to the State Government in a situation where the Chief Justice exercising powers under Article 229(2) of the Constitution recommended revised pay-scales for employees of the High Court after assessing requirement of number of posts and nature of duties attached to each post in the establishment of High Court. The exercise of justifiability of revision of pay-scale has been extensively dealt with at the High Court level and only thereafter the Chief Justice recommended for revision of pay-scales for employees of High Court. The nature of power under Article 229(2) of the Constitution has been succinctly elaborated by Apex Court in the judgment rendered in (State of U.P. and another vs. C.L. Agrawal and another), (1997) 5 SCC 1. Relevant extract of which is quoted below:
"12. Article 229 does not state that posts in the High Court are to be created by the Governor; it does not even deal with the creation of posts. Clause (1) thereof empowers the Chief Justice to make the appointments of officers and servants of a High Court. Clause (2) empowers the Chief Justice to make rules prescribing the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court with the proviso that so far as these rules relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, they require the Governor's approval. Clause (3) requires the administrative expenses of the High Court to be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State."
5.2 The Apex Court in another decision of M. Gurumoorthy vs. Accountant General (1971) 2 SCC 137 in Para 6 has held as under:-
"6. Once an order had been passed by the Chief Justice of the High Court in exercise of his power under Article 229 of the Constitution the only course open to the Government, if it wanted to challenge those orders, was to take appropriate proceedings either by way of persuading the Chief Justice to rescind or amend his order on the administrative side or to file a writ petition challenging his orders in the High Court. But the Government took the extraordinary and somewhat unusual step of directing the Accountant- General not to issue any pay-slip to the appellant until final orders of the Government were issued."
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10-04-2026 13:26:14 ConC No.3350 of 2018 7 Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association vs. Union of India & Anr. (1989) 4 SCC 187 in Para 57 has held thus:-
"57. So far as the Supreme Court and the High Courts are concerned, the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, are empowered to frame rules subject to this that when the rules are framed by the Chief Justice of India or by the Chief Justice of the High Court relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, the approval of the President of India or the Governor, as the case may be, is required. It is apparent that the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the High Court have been placed at a higher level in regard to the framing of rules containing the conditions of service. It is true that the President of India cannot be compelled to grant approval to the rules framed by the Chief Justice of India relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, but it is equally true that when such rules have been framed by a very high dignitary of the State, it should be looked upon with respect and unless there is very good reason not to grant approval, the approval should always be granted. If the President of India is of the view that the approval cannot be granted, he cannot straightway refuse to grant such approval, but before doing so, there must be exchange of thoughts between the President of India and the Chief Justice of India."
5.3 From the above, it is evident that unless there are very strong and cogent reasons for not accepting the recommendations made by the Chief Justice of this Court, the State ordinarily accepts the same by notifying upgradation of pay-scales as recommended by Chief Justice in Schedule-I sent vide D.O. No.68/21 dated 04.02.2021. Pertinently, if there is reasonable justification for revision/upgradation of pay-scale proposed by Chief Justice of High Court, then the obstacle of insufficiency of funds cannot come in way of the State from accepting the recommendation.
5.4 If State continues to sit over the matter for any further period of time, it would create a situation where judiciary and executive would be at loggerheads which is not in the interest of administration of justice.
6. However, considering the fact that the Chief Secretary Smt. Veera Rana has extended the reasons of Legislative Assembly being in Session, this Court, as a matter of last indulgence, grants further three weeks time to the State to resolve the stalemate, to avoid confrontation with the judiciary.
7. Accordingly, let the case be taken up on 31.07.2024 for either reporting compliance by the State or showing cause as to why coercive steps be not taken against respondent/contemner."
6. The current incumbent herein the Chief Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh was impleaded as co-respondent on 16.10.2024 and vide order dated 24.10.2024, this Court while considering application I.A.No.22851 of 2024 seeking discharge from the contempt proceedings had observed as under:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10-04-2026 13:26:14 ConC No.3350 of 2018 8
"I.A. No.22851/2024 :
This is an application filed by the respondents seeking discharge from contempt proceedings. It is submitted that the Cabinet in its meeting held on 23.07.2024 has directed the Chief Secretary to bring to the notice of this Court the Cabinet decision dated 04.01.2022.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that Cabinet decision dated 04.01.2022 was placed before this Court by the respondents alongwith its reply being I.A. No.248/2022 in the form of compliance report dated 07.01.2022. However, order dated 10.01.2022 notes that the said compliance report dated 07.01.2022 was withdrawn. Learned senior counsel submits that once the compliance report, placing on record the decision of the Cabinet dated 04.01.2022, was unconditionally withdrawn, the same could not have been reiterated. Learned senior counsel submits that apparently these proceedings were not brought to the notice of the Cabinet when a decision was taken on 23.07.2024.
He submits that it appears that the Cabinet was not made aware of the proceedings of this Court as well as the orders passed from time to time. In view of the above, it will be expedient to examine the record that was placed before the Cabinet at the time of its consideration on 23.07.2024. Learned Advocate General prays for time to produce the relevant record that was placed before the Cabinet for its decision dated 23.07.2024. Let the record be produced in a sealed cover.
The Chief Secretary is directed to be connected through Video Conferencing on the next date of hearing."
7. When the matter was taken up on 16.01.2025, on the statement made by learned Advocate General, it was directed that "Chief Secretary is directed to place the matter before the Cabinet as early as possible, preferably in the next Cabinet meeting, along with the orders passed by this Court from time to time particularly the order dated 04.07.2024" and the matter was directed to be listed on 24.02.2025 and the Chief Secretary was directed to connect virtually. Thereafter, the matter was again adjourned on 24.02.2025 with an observation that the Chief Secretary shall take proactive steps and place the matter before the Cabinet for its consideration. Thereafter, the matter was again taken up for consideration on 24.03.2025 and a detailed order has been passed by this Court. It is was pointed out that Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10-04-2026 13:26:14 ConC No.3350 of 2018 9 the objections raised by the State Government regarding scale of pay not commensurate to the Shetty Pay Commission or disparity with the employees of the State Government with the employees of the High Court, are wholly irrelevant because recommendations of the Shetty Pay Commission apply only to the employees to the District Court and not to the employees of the High Court and if Hon'ble the Chief Justice proposes pay- scales and allowances in exercise of powers under Article 229 of the Constitution of India, its approval by the Hon'ble Governor is required, none else. The objections taken by the Government should be genuine. This Court further observed that various objections with respect to nomenclature, additional expenditure are wholly irrelevant, which is not in the domain of the State Government to raise these objections. Only relevant objection raised by the Government is vide letter dated 26.08.2017 wherein the Government had requested the Registrar General to make amendments in the Rules of 1996 proposing the scale of pay. The said objection was not duly dealt with by the Registry, although the recourse required was to make amendment by way of upgradation of scales of pay in the Rules after considering the prevalent upgradation made by the made the High Court of Delhi, High Court of Allahabad, High Court of Punjab and Haryana, High Court of Bombay, High Court of Meghalaya, High Court of Chhattisgarh, High Court of Karnataka, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, High Court of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10-04-2026 13:26:14 ConC No.3350 of 2018 10 Rajasthan, High Court of Sikkim and High Court of Gauhati. This Court further observed that vide order dated 22.05.2024, the Division Bench of this Court was of the opinion that if the orders of the High Court are not complied with, then the whole Cabinet will be under contempt. Thereafter various proceedings were undertaking, but the orders of the High Court are not complied with. Arguments were advanced by learned Advocate General to the effect that the order passed by the High Court in the writ petition was to consider recommendations made by the High Court, which was pending before the State Government since 27.06.2015 and no further direction is issued in this regard. The arguments were countered by placing reliance upon a judgment by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and another vs. C.L. Agrawal and another reported in (1997) 5 SCC 1 wherein in para 57 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"57. So far as the Supreme Court and the High Courts are concerned, the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, are empowered to frame rules subject to this that when the rules are framed by the Chief Justice of India or by the Chief Justice of the High Court relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, the approval of the President of India or the Governor, as the case may be, is required. It is apparent that the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the High Court have been placed at a higher level in regard to the framing of rules containing the conditions of service. It is true that the President of India cannot be compelled to grant approval to the rules framed by the Chief Justice of India relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, but it is equally true that when such rules have been framed by a very high dignitary of the State, it should be looked upon with respect and unless there is very good reason not to grant approval, the approval should always be granted. If the President of India is of the view that the approval cannot be granted, he cannot straightway refuse to grant Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10-04-2026 13:26:14 ConC No.3350 of 2018 11 such approval, but before doing so, there must be exchange of thoughts between the President of India and the Chief Justice of India."
7.1 This Court further observed that vide order dated 04.07.2024, the Division Bench of this Court had considered the arguments that obstacle of in sufficiency of funds cannot come in the way of the State from accepting the recommendations. After considering the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate General, the State were directed to produce precis placed before the Hon'ble Governor for perusal of this Court.
8. In pursuance to the same, learned Advocate General appearing before this Court has drawn attention of this Court to the document i.e. the compliance report submitted before this Court dated 03.04.2025 accompanied by the order of 04.03.2025 wherein the entire materials which were placed before the Hon'ble Governor for consideration in the form of precis. Drawing attention to the aforesaid, it is argued by learned Advocate General that the order passed by this Court was to consider the recommendations made by Hon'ble the Chief Justice exercising powers under Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India. The authorities have considered the same and passed an order whereupon, they are not in agreement with the recommendations made by Hon'ble the Chief Justice and rejected the same. The entire materials were considered by the Cabinet and thereafter the same was placed before the Hon'ble Governor for approval. It is argued that while dealing with the contempt petition, jurisdiction of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10-04-2026 13:26:14 ConC No.3350 of 2018 12 contempt Court is limited. It cannot be travelled beyond the observations and directions issued in the original orders. As there was only a direction to consider the recommendations and to pass an order and as the authorities have complied with the same, there is no wilful disobedience on the part of the authorities. Therefore, no contempt is made out. It is further contended that the entire materials have been placed before the Cabinet for consideration and the same was also sent along with precis for consideration before the Hon'ble Governor. He has relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Shahi vs. Ram Sevak Yadav reported in (2008) 14 SCC 115 with reference to para 50 as well as the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manjula Choudhary vs. Priyanka Chauhan reported in (2015) 4 MPLJ 704 with reference to para 23, in support of the arguments that jurisdiction of the Contempt Court is only confined to the directions given in the original orders. The contempt Court cannot travel beyond the directions which have been given in the original orders. If in compliance of the orders passed by this Court, the authorities have passed an order rightly or wrongly, the same gives a fresh cause of action to the concerning and he has to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances. It is in fact in blatant violation of the directions of the Courts, whether the order passed by the authorities is right or wrong, cannot be considered under the contempt Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10-04-2026 13:26:14 ConC No.3350 of 2018 13 jurisdiction.
9. He further relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sudhir Vasudeva vs. M. George Ravishekaran reported in (2014) 3 SCC 373 with reference to 19 and 20; High Court Employees Welfare Association vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2007) 3 SCC 637; State of Maharashtra vs. Association of Court Stenos reported in (2002) 2 SCC 141; State of Rajasthan vs. Ramesh Chandra Mundra reported in (2020) 20 SCC 163; Union of India vs. S.B. Vohra reported in (2004) 2 SCC 150 and in the case of State of Andra Pradesh vs. T. Gopalakrishnan Murthi reported in (1976) 2 SCC 883 with respect to powers exercised by Hon'ble the Chief Justice under Article 229 of the Constitution of India. It is argued that the Governor may refuse the proposal of Hon'ble the Chief Justice by making an observation that proposal is not in conformity with the pay-scales in civil services. As the orders have been passed by the authorities, there is substantial compliance of the order passed in the writ petition. Therefore, nothing survives for consideration in the present contempt petition. He has prayed for dismissal of the contempt petition.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, on the other hand, has argued that the order passed in the writ petition is not yet complied with. He has drawn attention of this Court to the earlier orders passed by this Court in various occasions including a detailed order which was passed on Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10-04-2026 13:26:14 ConC No.3350 of 2018 14 05.09.2019 and it is argued that arguments which are advanced by learned Advocate General before this Court were virtually considered by the Division Bench of this Court and thereafter it was observed that there is no compliance of the order passed in the writ petition. It is argued that recommendations made by the committee have been given a stamp of approval by Hon'ble the Chief Justice while exercising the powers under Article 229 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.B. Vohra (supra) as well as in the case of C.L. Agrawal (supra) has held that Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the Court or the Judge authorises by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice is having powers to frame the Rules if not already framed by the Legislature of the State relating to salaries, allowances, leaves and pensions subject to approval by the Governor. Therefore, if the Rules propose a scale of pay, the Government of Madhya Pradesh is bound to accept, until and unless cogent and adequate reasons are assigned to the contrary as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.B. Vohra (supra). In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that upgradation of pay scale of employees of the High Court were considered by the Central Government of India. The Government of India was having concern with the fact that employees of the other High Courts should not be dealt with differently in the matter of scale of pay and they should be at par with the employees of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10-04-2026 13:26:14 ConC No.3350 of 2018 15 the Delhi High Court in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court was made applicable in rem and not in personam. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the State Government was not so sincere to extend such benefit to the employees of the High Court, rather to continue to raise unnecessary objections which ought not to be raised.
11. It is argued that the decision taken by the Cabinet which was produced before this Court was withdrawn vide order dated 10.01.2022. It is argued before this Court that the compliance report which has been submitted before this Court along with letter dated 03.04.2025 enclosing a decision of 04.03.2025 is nothing but an eye wash. The Court was conscious about the aforesaid fact, therefore, had directed that the entire precis to be placed before the Court for perusal. In pursuance to which, the entire precis which was placed before the Hon'ble Governor was placed before this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to the observations made by the Cabinet including the opinion given by the Cabinet which shows that they are in concurrence of the earlier opinion which was given by them. The aforesaid aspect is reflected from page 44/46 of the precis, which was placed before the Hon'ble Governor for consideration. The relevant extract is as under:-
"11/ व वभाग के पूव अ भमत पर ि थर रहते हुये उपरो तानुसार त य के Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10-04-2026 13:26:14 ConC No.3350 of 2018 16 ि टगत वभागीय मं -प रषद सं े पका पर असहम त य त क जाती है।"
It is virtually reiteration of the facts and various orders passed by this Court from time to time. However, there is no application of mind and there is no proper consideration by the Cabinet. They were aware of the fact that the earlier decision taken by the Cabinet was withdrawn.
12. It is further argued that the authorities have not placed the complete order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 05.09.2019 before the Cabinet. It is argued that all the objections which have been taken, were already considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the said order. It is argued before this Court that the authorities were having limited jurisdiction to reject the recommendations made by Hon'ble the Chief Justice while exercising powers under Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India. He has drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 04.07.2024 and has argued that while passing the said order, this Court again considered all the arguments raised before this Court on behalf of the State Government.
13. The Division Bench had considered the judgment passed in the case of Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association vs. Union of India & Anr. (1989) 4 SCC 187 wherein in Para 57 it was observed as under:-
"57. So far as the Supreme Court and the High Courts are concerned, the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, are empowered to frame rules subject to this that when the rules are framed by the Chief Justice of India or by the Chief Justice of the High Court relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, the approval of the President of India or the Governor, as the case may be, is required. It is apparent that the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the High Court have been placed at a Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10-04-2026 13:26:14 ConC No.3350 of 2018 17 higher level in regard to the framing of rules containing the conditions of service. It is true that the President of India cannot be compelled to grant approval to the rules framed by the Chief Justice of India relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, but it is equally true that when such rules have been framed by a very high dignitary of the State, it should be looked upon with respect and unless there is very good reason not to grant approval, the approval should always be granted. If the President of India is of the view that the approval cannot be granted, he cannot straightway refuse to grant such approval, but before doing so, there must be exchange of thoughts between the President of India and the Chief Justice of India."
13.1 The Division Bench of this Court has also considered the judgment passed in the case of M. Gurumoorthy vs. Accountant General reported in (1971) 2 SCC 137 wherein it was observed that "once an order had been passed by the Chief Justice of the High Court in exercise of his power under Article 229 of the Constitution the only course open to the Government, if it wanted to challenge those orders, was to take appropriate proceedings either by way of persuading the Chief Justice to rescind or amend his order on the administrative side or to file a writ petition challenging his orders in the High Court." It is argued that decision taken by Hon'ble the Chief Justice was never challenged before any forum. However, the order passed in the writ petition was tested before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing an SLP which was dismissed vide order dated 12.01.2018. There is no review petition filed or pending adjudication before this Court against the order passed by the writ Court. It is argued that in terms of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association (supra), if the State Government is not in agreement with the proposal/recommendations made by Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10-04-2026 13:26:14 ConC No.3350 of 2018 18 is of the view that the approval cannot be granted, they are having no powers to straightaway refuse to grant such approval and before refusal there must be an exchange of thoughts between the Hon'ble Governor and the Hon'ble Chief Justice of State of Madhya Pradesh. There is no such document placed on record to show that such exercise was carried out by the respondents prior to passing the order. Learned Advocate General of the State could not show any document to show that prior to rejecting the recommendations made by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the State of Madhya Pradesh, there was any discussion between the Hon'ble Governor and Hon'ble the Chief Justice of State of M.P. No justifiable reason has been assigned in not extending the said pay-scale to the employees of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Shetty Pay Commission had recommended of extension of such benefits to the employees of the district judiciary. Similar benefits have already been extended to the employees of the various High Courts of various States as pointed out hereinabove. Then under what circumstances, there is a denial by the State of Madhya Pradesh for not extending such benefits to the employees of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh could not be explained. The only reason which is reflected from the opinion given by the Cabinet is as under:
"व वभाग के उपरो त अ भमत के ब दु मांक 6 व 7 अनुसार अ य उ च यायालय (गुजरात, राज थान, छ ीसगढ़, द ल , उ राखंड, म ास, उडीसा, तेलग ं ाना Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10-04-2026 13:26:14 ConC No.3350 of 2018 19 एवं आं ा उ च यायालय) म समान उ रदा य व के पद के संबंध म दे य वेतनमान क वभ न ोत से ा त जानकार के आधार पर व वभाग वारा तैयार कया गया तुलना मक प क को सं े पका म समा हत कया गया है। (प र श ट-34 पृ ठ मांक 397) व वभाग क उपरो त आप य के प रशीलन उपरांत व ध वभाग माननीय उ च यायालय वारा े षत कए गए ताव दनांक 04.02.2021 अनुसार म य दे श उ च यायालय (भत , सेवा क सामा य शत, आचरण, वग करण, नयं ण तथा अपील) नयम, 2017 क अनुसूची-1 (प र श ट-1) को उ च यायालय म य दे श जबलपुर वारा ता वत अनुसूची-1 (प र श ट-3) से त था पत कए जाने के ताव से सहमत है।"
14. This goes to show that no further deliberation is made by the Cabinet. They have only given a concurrence on the earlier opinion which was given by them while rejecting the recommendations made by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court. However, the said decision which was placed before this Court was already withdrawn by them, which is reflected from the order dated 10.01.2022. Perusal of the opinion as well as the precis which has been placed before the Hon'ble Governor for consideration, does not reflect application of mind to the effect that there was any comparison made by the Cabinet on the aspect that similar issues were considered by other High Courts and after due consideration, they have implemented the recommendations and extended the benefits to the employees of the High Courts at par with the employees who are rendering their services in the District Courts. Under these circumstances, the compliance report which has been submitted before this Court cannot said to be a complete compliance Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10-04-2026 13:26:14 ConC No.3350 of 2018 20 order passed by the writ Court.
15. This contempt petition is pending since 2018 and till date the order passed by this Court on 28.04.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.7058 of 2016 has not been complied with. This Court vide order dated 13.12.2021 has already observed that presence of the Chief Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh is sufficient for consideration of this case. For making complete compliance of the order passed by this Court, time was granted on the requests made by learned Advocate General and the Chief Secretary of State of Madhya Pradesh from time to time. However, despite there being an observation on earlier occasion that this Court does not want any confrontation with the State Government on the issue of non-compliance of the order passed by this Court as well as the order making an observation that if the orders passed by this Court are not complied with, then the matter will be considered for framing of charges on the next date of hearing. The fact remains that again in the form of compliance report before this Court, the authorities have placed the same before this Court which was already withdrawn by them on 10.01.2022. Under these circumstances, this Court is having no hesitation to hold that the order passed by the writ Court has not been complied with till date. However, prior to proceeding further for framing of charges for non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court, this Court deem it appropriate to hear the Chief Secretary of the State of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10-04-2026 13:26:14 ConC No.3350 of 2018 21 Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, he is directed to remain present before this Court on 04.05.2026.
16. List the case on 04.05.2026 for consideration.
17. A copy of this order be supplied to the learned Advocate General for necessary compliance.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE SJ Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10-04-2026 13:26:14