Madhya Pradesh High Court
G.K. Beohar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1410
1 WP-5132-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 8 th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 5132 of 2018
G.K. BEOHAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arpan Shrivastava - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri A.S. Baghel - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
Shri Ankit Agrawal - Advocate for respondent No.4.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 27.12.2017 (Annexure P/8) passed by the respondent No.2 whereby claim of the petitioners for grant of benefit of second Kramonnati/Higher Pay Scale on completion of 24 years of service and payment of gratuity has been rejected.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No.4 is a Government grant-in-aid private education society running various schools and colleges in different city like, Jabalpur, Narsinghpur etc. They are running school namely S.B.B.P. Naveen Vidya Bhawan, Barman, Tehsild Kareli, District Narsinghpur.
The petitioners were appointed in the respondent No.4 institution on 02.12.1971 and 01.07.1974 respectively. They are having unblemished service records to their credit and no coercive action at any point of time was initiated by the respondent. On attaining the age of superannuation, they stood retired from the post of Upper Division Teacher vide orders dated 31.08.2009 and 01.07.2011 respectively. On completion of 12 years of service, benefit of first krammonati was extended to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-01-2025 11:14:57 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1410 2 WP-5132-2018 petitioner No.1 vide order dated 09.09.1997 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and to the petitioner No.2 w.e.f. 01.08.1994.
3. It is submitted that as the respondent No.4 institution is 100% grant-in-aid educational society, the rules and enactments framed by the State Government from time to time with respect to revised pay scale rules, which are applicable to the Government teacher, are applicable to the respondent No.4/Institution also. The petitioners too will be entitled for grant of similar benefits as to that of teachers working in the Government schools. The respondents themselves have granted the benefit of first krammonnati to the petitioners on completion of 12 years of service, but have refused to grant benefit of second krammonati on completion of 24 years of service. The petitioners filed a representation before the authorities, but of no consequence, therefore, they filed a writ petition before this court being W.P.No.12856 of 2017 seeking extension of benefit of second krammonati and amount of gratuity. The said writ petition was disposed off vide order dated 05.09.2017 and pursuance to which, the petitioners had submitted representations to the authorities. The petitioners were called for personal hearing and thereafter the impugned order dated 27.12.2017 has been passed rejecting the claim of the petitioners. It is argued that the aforesaid aspect was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.417 of 2009 ( J.C. Mills Education Institution and another vs. Smt. Ashindra Tiwari and others vide order dated 30.07.2012 wherein the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to hold that the payment of gratuity is also applicable to grant-in-aid educational institutions. It is argued that in the case of Ramji Lal Kushwaha vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2018(1) MPLJ 49, the benefit of payment of gratuity was made to the petitioner therein following the Division Bench's judgment. It is argued that there is no reason assigned by the authorities for non-grant of benefit of second Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-01-2025 11:14:57 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1410 3 WP-5132-2018 krammonati to the petitioners. The only requirement of completion of 12 and 24 years of service is to be considered by the authorities. Once on completion of 12 years of service, the authorities have extended the benefit of first krammonati, then on completion of 24 years of service, benefit of second krammonati should have been extended to the petitioners. As far as gratuity is concerned, the matter is settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of J.C. Mills Educational Institution (supra), therefore, the authorities are required to extend such benefits to the petitioner. A prayer for quashment of impugned order is made.
4. On notice being issued, a reply has been filed by the authorities denying petition's averments. It is submitted that the petitioners were working in the private institution and therefore, they are not entitled for grant of benefit of second krammonati as well as gratuity. Apart from the aforesaid denial, it is contended that there is no provision for contribution through CPF, further grant-in-aids schools were governed by the rules known as Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapako Thata Anya Karmchariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sandai) Adhiniyam, 1978 wherein, it has been clearly mentioned that the employees of grant-in-aid schools are not entitled to get benefit of pension/gratuity including benefit of second krammonati. Therefore, a reasoned order has been passed by the authorities, which does not call for any interference in the present petition. They have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court series of judgment, which are considered the aspect of entitlement of gratuity in grant-in-aid educational society running their schools which are under control and supervision of the State Government;
such as Mahendra Singh Chhabda vs. the appellate authority reported in 2011 (3) MPHT 318; K.V. Patel Gujrai Kanya Uchhatar Madhyamik Vidhyala vs. Prahlad Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-01-2025 11:14:57 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1410 4 WP-5132-2018 and others, 2013 (3) MPLJ 446, VTP Higher Secondary School vs. State of M.P. and others 2012 (1) MPLJ 211 as well as in the case of J.C. Mills Education Institution (supra).
6. As far as benefit of second krammonati is concerned, it is argued that there is no justification given by the authorities that once they have extended the benefit of first krammonati to the petitioners on completion of 12 years of service, then why the benefit of second krammonati has not been extended to them on completion of 24 years of service. The petitioners have completed more than 30 years of service in the respondent/Institution and stood retired from the post of Upper Division Teacher, therefore, entitled for the said benefits.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The question which cropped up for consideration before this Court is whether the petitioners who are working in the institution which is receiving grant-in-aid from the Government and under control of the Government, are entitled for claim of second krammonati benefit as well as gratuity.
9. As far as payment of gratuity to the employees of grant-in-aid institutions are concerned, the aforesaid question is no more res-integra as the matter is travelled up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in large number of cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Sanatam Dharam Girls Secondary School and others reported in (2007) 1 SCC 268 has considered the aspect that whether the private institutions which are receiving grant-in-aid are treated to be under control of the State Government for the purpose of employees provident fund and while interpreting Section 16(1)(b) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Fund Act, 1952, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"Although in a matter relating to exemption available to the grant-in-aided Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-01-2025 11:14:57 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1410 5 WP-5132-2018 educational institutions under Section 16(1)(b) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Funds Act, 1952, While considering the true import of "belonging to" and "under the control of", the Apex Court has clarified that the words "belonging to" signify ownership i.e. Government owned institutions would be covered under the said part and the words "under the control of" signify control other than ownership, since ownership has already been covered under the word "belonging to". Both the words are separated by "OR" and therefore, these two words refers to two mutually exclusive categories of institutions. While the institutions "belonging to" to the Central or State Government would imply the control of the State but the privately-owned institutions can be "under the control of"
the Government in various ways. The word "control" is synonym with superintendence, management or authority to direct, restrict or regulate. The said judgment has been referred by the Apex Court recently in the matter of M/s Yeshwant Gramin Shikshan Sanstha vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and others, 2017 (3) SC 515, wherein it has been held that the grant-in-aided non- governmental institutions are working under the control of the State government and thus would fulfill even the first condition of Section 16(1) (b) of the Act of 1972.
16. Although the said discussion is in the realm of employees provident fund but the said discussion can be profitably drawn to conclude that the State of M.P., being employer under Section 2(f) of the Act of 1972 is liable to make payment of amount of gratuity to the employees/ teachers working in such type of institutions"
10. The aforesaid aspect was again considered by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of State of M.P. and another vs. Sharique A. Ali and others (Civil Appeal No.636 of 2004) decided on 07.01.2014 wherein it is held that wherein those teachers/ employees who were appointed prior to 01/04/2000 are treated under the umbrella of M.P. Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sansthan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, (20 of 1978) and the amendment made by the State Government through amendment Act, 2000 will not come in the way of teachers appointed before 01/04/2000. Consequently, the State of M.P. issued a notification /order dated Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-01-2025 11:14:57 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1410 6 WP-5132-2018 28/02/2015 in this regard and clarified the status of persons like present petitioners. Now the persons who are being appointed prior to 01/04/2000 shall be continue to be covered by the Act of 1978 as well as M.P. Ashaskiya Shikshan Sansthan (Adhyapako Thatha Anya Karmchariyo Ke Vetno Ka Sandhaya) (Institutional Fund) Rules, 1983 and the benefits flowing out of the said provisions.
11. If the case of the petitioners is analyzed in terms of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, then it is seen that the Act of 1978 and the Rules of 1983 are exhaustive code regarding governance of grant-in-aid institutions and the provisions of Act of 1978 and Rules of 1983 as well as provisions of Act of 1972 if are seen in justaposition, then the claim of the petitioners to receive gratuity from the State Government is established. The aforesaid aspect was considered in the case of Sharique A. Ali (supra) and Sanatam Dharam (supra) as well as M/s Yeshwant Gramin (supra), thus there is no dispute with respect to settled proposition of law in the aforesaid cases. Hence, the petitioners herein are entitled for grant of gratuity from the State Government.
12. As far as the claim with respect to grant of benefit of second krammonati is concerned, as the authorities themselves have considered the case of the petitioner for grant of benefit of first krammonati on completion of 12 years of service, then there is no justification on the part of the authorities in refusing to grant benefit of second krammonati to the petitioners on completion of 24 years of service. Hence, on both counts, the impugned order dated 27.12.2017 is unsustainable and is hereby quashed. The authorities are directed to extend the benefit of gratuity as well as second krammonati benefit to the petitioners on completion of 24 years of service within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that the arrears will carry an interest at the rate of 6% per Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-01-2025 11:14:57 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1410 7 WP-5132-2018 annum. If the aforesaid amount is not paid within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, then the authorities are directed to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum towards delayed payment to the petitioners.
13. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed off. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE sj Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-01-2025 11:14:57 AM