STATE OF M.P. & ORS. versus V.V. ASHTHANA & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 1292 · Decided: 18-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE, V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: IA disposed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 17 S.C.R 1292 
A 
STATE OF M:P. & ORS. 
v. 
~- . 
V.V. ASHTHANA & ORS. 
(I.A.No. 4 of 2008) 
.B 
DECEMBER 18, 2008 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
INTERLOCUTORY ORDER: 
f _:_,_ 
c 
Interim stay - Matters regarding constitutional validity of 
MP (Amendment) Act 26 of 2000 relating to reduction of grant-
in-aid pending before Supreme Court·- SLP against ofcler of 
High Court in contempt petition directing to comply with the 
order granting benefits of 5th Pay Commission to teachers 
pending - Stay of the order of High Court sought- ~HELD: It 
D will be better if the teachers. are paid the benefits of the 5th 
Pay Commission upto 31.3.2009- This payment of additional 
benefit as per the 5th Pay Commission, will be subject to the 
judgment in the instant case, as also in the main matter where 
;>'-
the question of constitutionality of Adhiniyams is pending. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 4 of 2008. 
IN 
Special Leave Petition No. 19188 of 2008. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 16.6.2008 of 
F the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Contempt 
Petition No. 339 of 2008. 
t .J( 
U.lrJ. Lalit, S.S. Banthia, Vikas Upadhyay for the Petitioner. 
Rajeev Dhawan, Rekha Pandey, Ambika Dass for the 
G Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
"" 
ORDER 
' 
1. State of Madhya Pradesh, the original petitioner in the 
.. H 
1292 
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. V.V. ASHTHANA & ORS. 
1293 
Special Leave Petition, has renewed its.prayer for Stay. In the. A 
above said Special Leave Petition, a notice is already issued 
,. 
on the limited point as to whether any direction can be issued 
I 
in a proceeding arising out of contempt. The impugned order . 
in the Special Leave Petition is passed by the Learned Single . 
Judge of the High Court in the contempt jurisdiction on a B 
petition having been filed before him by the 30 school teachers 
complaining of the non-compliance of Order dated 29.1.2003 
passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 2029 of 2000. 
' 
The Learned Single Judge, while disposing of the said Writ 
_____/ 
~. 
Petition No. 2029 of 2000 had observed as under:-
"Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances c 
and the legal position that emerges from the series of 
judgments referred to hereinbefore, there cannot be any 
doubt that in the present case also, the petitioners are 
entitled to benefit of revised pay scales as is being granted 
.D 
to other similarly situated teachers, who are employed in 
the Govt. Institute. The respondents cannot deny the 
aforesaid be,nefit to the teachers working in the institute. 
"' 
receiving grant-in-aid. As has been considered in the 
cases referred to hereinabove and in particular in the case 
of Ashok Kumar Gupta (supra), wherein Rule 33(1) of the E 
Adhiniyam of 1978 was considered in view of the 
aforesaid position and the direction given by this Court in 
\. 
various cases, the present petition is also allowed. The 
---( 
I 
respondenVState is directed to extend the same benefit 
to the petitioners also in the present case and grant benefit 
of revision of pay scale to the extent as has been directed F 
by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Suresh 
Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and others. Needless to 
emphasize that grant of aforesaid benefit shall always be 
subject to statut~as is applicable from time to time 
G 
in this regard. 
"' 
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Respondents are 
directed to make the payment in accordance with the 
1 
aforesaid direction." 
The teachers complained that in spite of this order, the H 
1294 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
A 
payments were not being made in the revised pay scales (which 
were revised as per the Vth Pay Commission and which pay 
scales were been paid to the teachers employed in the 
" 
/ 
Government Institutes). It was an admitted position that in Writ 
' 
Petition No. 2029 of 2000, that Court relying on some other 
B decisions, clearly held that the teachers, who were employed 
in the private aided schools, also were entitled to the benefits 
of the revised pay scales. It was on that basis that the contempt 
application was moved, since those benefits were not being 
passed to the teachers of the private schools, aided by the 
, 
Government. The Learned Judge in the contempt petition also 
-, 
c noted that the entitlement, as was found by the Learned Single 
Judge in the Writ Petition was challenged before the Division 
Bench in Lette
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.