Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gopal Panchal vs Urban Administration And Development ... on 23 April, 2026
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11445
1 WP-59-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 23rd OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 59 of 2015
GOPAL PANCHAL AND OTHERS
Versus
URBAN ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Lokesh Mehta - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Rajwardhan Gawde - Government Advocate for the respondents
No.1 to 5.
Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal - Advocate for the respondent No.6.
ORDER
1. Petitioners have filed this present petition seeking a direction to the respondents to grant the minimum pay scale of Shiksha Karmi Grade-3.
2. The petitioners are the residents of Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaora. The Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaora issued an advertisement on 1.9.1998 for recruitment to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-3 (Madarsa) in the pay scale of Rs.800-1200/-. Vide order dated 29.1.1999, the petitioners were appointed to the post of "Madarsa Ustad" on a fixed honorarium of Rs.1,000/- per month initially for the period of 3 years; the said period has been continuing till date. The petitioners filed a Writ Petition No.11665/2010 claiming the benefit of the regular pay scale of Shiksha Karmi at par with Shiksha Karmi Grade-3 in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in WP Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 4/30/2026 6:01:47 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11445 2 WP-59-2015 No.1570/2001 (Sayyed Imtiyaz Ali Vs. State of M.P. and others) decided on 22.3.2006, affirmed in WA No.453/2007. Vide order dated 4.4.2012, WP No.11665/2010 was disposed of with the direction to the Nagar Palika Parishad to decide the representation of the petitioners as to why they are not entitled to the benefit of pay scale of Rs.800-1200/- as given to Sayyed Imtiyaz Ali. The petitioners submitted a representation, which came to be rejected, distinguishing their case from that of Sayyed Imtiyaz Ali. Hence, the petitioners again approached this Court by way of this writ petition.
3. Shri Lokesh Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the advertisement dated 1.9.1998 was issued for appointment to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade 3 (Madarsa) for 21 posts in the pay scale of Rs.800-1200/- but the Nagar Palika wrongly issued an appointment order for appointing these petitioners to the post of "Madarsa Ustad", whereas in the case of Sayyed Imtiyaz Ali, the similar advertisement was issued and he was appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-3. Later on, the appointment of Sayyed Imtiyaz Ali was changed from Shiksha Karmi Grade-3 to Ustad, which he challenged before this Court by way of WP No.1570/2001, and the Writ Court allowed the writ petition, and the said order has been upheld up to the Supreme Court. The case of the petitioners is identical to the case of Sayyed Imtiyaz Ali. Hence, the petitioners are also liable to be appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi.
4. After notice, in this writ petition, the respondents have filed the reply that the petitioners were appointed in pursuance of the advertisement dated 1.9.1998 on the post of Ustad in Madarsa run under the Scheme of Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 4/30/2026 6:01:47 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11445 3 WP-59-2015 Rajeev Gandhi Primary Education Mission on a fixed honorarium of Rs.1,000/- per month. The petitioners have been working under the school run by the State Government and the Municipal Council, Jaora is only an appointing authority. The Council is not empowered to enhance the honorarium. Hence, the writ petition against the answering respondent is unsustainable.
5. Shri Rohit Mangal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 submits that the case of the petitioners is not identical to the case of Sayyed Imtiyaz Ali because Sayyed Imtiyaz Ali was initially appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi, but later on the said appointment was cancelled and he was appointed as a Ustad. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim parity with Sayyed Imtiyaz Ali. Hence, the petition be dismissed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It is not in dispute that the Municipal Council, Jaora, issued an advertisement, in pursuant to which the petitioners submitted an application for appointments to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-3 (Madarsa) in the pay scale of Rs.800-1200/-. As per the advertisement, applications were invited to fill up 21 posts of Shiksha Karmi Grade-3 (Madarsa) in the pay scale of Rs.800-20-1200/-. In this advertisement, it is not mentioned that the appointments are being made for the appointment in Madarsa opened under the Scheme of Rajeev Gandhi Primary Education Mission. The applications of the petitioners were considered for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-3 (Madarsa) in the pay scale of Rs.800-1200/-, but the appointment orders Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 4/30/2026 6:01:47 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11445 4 WP-59-2015 were issued on 29.1.1999, appointing them to the post of 'Madarsa Ustad' on fixed pay of Rs.1,000/- per month. However, the petitioners had accepted the said appointment at that time. Another advertisement was issued on 28.5.1998 by the Municipal Council, Jaora, for appointment to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-3 (Madarsa) in a pay scale of Rs.800-1200/- to fill 14 posts.
7. Similarly, Sayyed Imtiyaz Ali applied under the said advertisement and out of which, 8 persons were appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-3 in the pay scale of Rs.800-1200 vide order dated 18.8.1998 for a period of 3 years probation. All the 8 Shiksha Karmis joined, but later on vide order dated 12.1.1999, the Block Education Officer changed their posts from Shiksha Karmi Grade-3 (Madarsa) in the pay scale of Rs.800-1200/- to Ustad on a fixed honorarium of Rs.1,000/-. Sayyed Imtiyaz Ali challenged the said order issued by the Block Education Officer by way of appeal before the Collector, Ratlam, which was dismissed, and thereafter the writ petition was filed. The only difference in the case of petitioners and Sayyed Imtiyaz Ali is that these petitioners were appointed directly to the post of Ustad Madarsa and in the case of Sayyed Imtiyaz Ali, initially he was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-3 but later on it was changed to Madarsa Ustad. However, the advertisement pursuant to which these petitioners and Sayyed Imtiyaz Ali were appointed is the same. The writ petition filed by Sayyed Imtiyaz Ali came to be allowed vide order dated 22.3.2006 and the order converting his post from Shiksha Karmi Grade-3 to Ustad Madarsa was cancelled. Para-6, 7 & 12 of the order dated 22.3.2026 are reproduced Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 4/30/2026 6:01:47 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11445 5 WP-59-2015 below:-
"6. From the facts stated above it is clear that earlier in the year of 1996 the petitioners were engaged as Shiksha Karmis on a fixed pay of Rs.500 per month. Thereafter the Municipal Council issued an advertisement dated 28.5.1995 with regard to appointment of Shiksha Karmis. In the aforesaid advertisement 14 posts of Shiksha Karmis Class-III have been mentioned along with a descript (Madarsa). The pay scale has also been mentioned Rs.800-1200/-. Petitioners applied for the post and thereafter vide order dated 18.8.98 issued by the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Jawara they have appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Class-III on the pay scale of Rs.800-20-1200/- and subsequently vide order dated 12.1.99 issued by the Block Education Officer, Jawra their designation has been changed to Ustad and it is mentioned that they would be entitled an honorarium of Rs.1,000/- per month.
7. The service conditions of the Shiksha Karmis appointed in the Municipal Council have been governed by the Rules named as M.P. Municipal Council Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1998. These Rules have a statutory force of law because the aforesaid Rules have been framed under Section 58 of the Municipal Council Act, 1956 and Section 433 of Municipal Council Act, 1961 and Section 95 read with Section
355. Section 2 of the aforesaid Rule defines the Shiksha Karmi which is as under:-
"Shiksha Karmis means as it is persons appointed by the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council or Nagar Panchayat for the purpose of teaching to the school under their control." (Translated from Hindi context).
From the aforesaid definition and facts it is clear that the petitioners come within the purview of Shiksha Karmi because they were appointed by the Municipal Council and they are also teaching in Madarsa under the control of Municipal Council Jawra, the respondent No.2. The aforesaid fact has been admitted by the respondent No.3 & 4 in their reply. From their appointment order and the notification with regard to appointment it is further clear that they have appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi both in the appointments orders and notification with regard to selection issued by the Municipal Council it has specifically mentioned that Shiksha Karmi Class-III (Madarsa) would be appointed on the pay scale of Rs.800-1200 other similarly situated persons who were appointed alonwith petitioners in the Municipal Council are getting the same pay scale. However, the designation of the petitioners has been changed unilaterally by the respondent No.3 vide letter dated 12.1.99 mentioning the fact that petitioners Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 4/30/2026 6:01:47 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11445 6 WP-59-2015 would be designated as Ustad and they would get an honorarium of Rs.1000 per month. The respondent No.2, 3 & 4 did not assign any cogent reasons with regard to giving Rs.1000/- per month as honorarium to the petitioners, except the fact that as per the budget of the respondent No.3 Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Karmi Project Ustad who were teaching in Madarsa would be given an honorarium of Rs.1000 per month. The respondent No.3 in his return has also stated that working plan with regard to appointment of Shiksha Karmi was prepared in the year of 1998-99 and upto that time there was no difference between the Shiksha Karmi of Madarsa and other Shiksha Karmi appointed by the respondent No.2 after the preparation of the plan in the year of 1998-99 and difference has been made between the Shiksha Karmis who were working under the Mission and the petitioners who were teaching in Madarsa they were given the name as Shiksha Karmi and they were also given the pay scale of Rs.800-20-1200/-. However, the petitioners who were appointed as Shiksha Karmi Madarsa their designation was changed as Ustad and they were given an honorarium of Rs.1000/- per month except this no other reasons have been assigned by the respondents with regard to change of pay scale and designation of the petitioners.
12. On the basis of the above principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Court and the facts of the present case the respondent No.2, 3 & 4 have failed to discharge their burden in showing before the Court the reasons with regard to grant of honorarium of Rs.1000 per month to the petitioners. It is the fact that the petitioners were appointed as Shiksha Karmi Class-III Madarsa on the pay scale of Rs.800-1200/-. The advertisement have been issued on the same post with regard to other Shiksha Karmis employed by the respondent No.2 are getting the same pay scale. The petitioners have the same qualifications and the procedure of appointment has been adopted in the case of petitioners and other persons is the same. Hence, in my opinion the grant of Rs.1000/- as honorarium to the petitioners is illegal and arbitrary."
8. The aforesaid order was challenged by the State Government by way of Writ Appeal No.453/2007 before this Court and vide order dated 12.11.2008 the writ appeal came to be dismissed. The order dated 12.11.2008 is reproduced below:-
"Before hearing the parties on I.A. No.6843/2007, we thought it prudent to look into the merits of the matter.
Shri Gajankush, learned counsel for the State submitted that the respondents could not be appointed as Shiksha Karmi Class-III simplicitor and as they were appointed as Shiksha Karmi Class-III Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 4/30/2026 6:01:47 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11445 7 WP-59-2015 (Madarsa), the State was justified in changing their pay scale from pay scale of Rs.800-1200/- and were fixed at honorarium of Rs.1,000/-, From the records, it would appear that the advertisement was issued and in response to the advertisement, number of persons had submitted their candidature. In fact, the original petitioners were appointed as Shiksha Karmi Class-III (Madarsa) on the pay scale of Rs.800-1200/-. The advertisement also had been issued for the same post with regard to other Shiksha Karmis employed by original respondent No.2 and such persons were getting the pay scale of Rs.800-1200/-. If the process was same, the work discharge is the same and the appointment was to office of Shiksha Karmi Class-III, then the State, in our considered opinion, was not entitled to change the status of original petitioners by awarding them Rs.1,000/- as honorarium.
As on the merits, we find nothing in the matter, we don't think that any useful purpose would be served by granting I.A. No.6843/2008. The application is rejected and the appeal is also dismissed."
9. Thereafter the SLP No.9035/2009 was filed, which came to be dismissed on 27.11.2009. The petitioners came to know the aforesaid order passed in the case of Sayyed Imtiyaz Ali (supra), they immediately filed the Writ Petition No.10783/2012 before this Court claiming the benefit of the pay scale of Rs.800-1200/-. The Writ Court allowed the writ petition directing the Council to examine the case of the petitioners and to determine how they are not entitled to the benefit given by this Court in the case of Sayyed Imtiyaz Ali (supra). The respondent wrongly rejected the representation vide order dated 8.11.2014, treating the case of the petitioners differently from Sayyed Imtiyaz Ali, but as discussed above, there is no difference between the appointment of petitioners and Sayyed Imtiyaz Ali as the advertisements were identical. The only difference was that these petitioners were appointed to the post of Ustad, and Sayyed Imtiyaz Ali was appointed initially to the post of Shiksha Karmi, then changed to Ustad, which has been quashed by this Court.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 4/30/2026 6:01:47 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11445 8 WP-59-2015
10. Therefore, this petition is allowed. The petitioners be given the same benefits as have been given to Sayyed Imtiyaz Ali and others (supra) by treating them to be appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-3 from the date of initial appointment with all consequential benefits.
11. The writ petition is allowed with the cost of Rs.2500/- per petitioner payable by respondent no.6.
(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE trilok Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 4/30/2026 6:01:47 PM