Merger Into State Education Service Doesn't Nullify Previous Service Benefits: MP HC
Madhya Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi upheld the rights of Shikshakarmi teachers to receive benefits equivalent to regular municipal employees. The Court ruled that teachers initially appointed under municipal rules in 1998-99 and subsequently merged into the state education service are entitled to all service...
Madhya Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi upheld the rights of Shikshakarmi teachers to receive benefits equivalent to regular municipal employees. The Court ruled that teachers initially appointed under municipal rules in 1998-99 and subsequently merged into the state education service are entitled to all service benefits, including pension, from their initial appointment date. The Court rejected the municipality's argument distinguishing between regular municipal employees and Shikshakarmis, finding no difference in appointment procedures and service conditions under the 1998 Rules.
Background
This case originated from appointments made in 1998-99 when the respondents were appointed as Shikshakarmi Grade-I by the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Mandsaur. Their appointments were governed by the Madhya Pradesh Nagarpalik Shiksha Karmi (Bharti Tatha Seva Sharten) Niyam, 1998. While initially appointed in the pay scale of Rs.1000-30-1600, they were regularized after three years of probation. Despite completing 12 years of service, they were denied the regular pay scale applicable to Nagarpalika Teachers. From April 2007, they received a pay scale of Rs.4000-8000 but claimed entitlement to Rs.5000-8500 under Rule 7 of the 1998 Rules. The municipality also denied them benefits such as house rent allowance, employee insurance, and medical facilities. They were compelled to join the Contributory Pension Plan introduced in 2005, despite working since 1998.
Arguments
The appellant municipality contended that all benefits under the 1998 Rules had already been provided to the respondents. They argued that under the 2008 Rules, the teachers were not regular municipal employees but state government employees. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Dr. K.M. Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh (2022) 11 SCC 436, they argued that municipal teachers and Shikshakarmis, being appointed under different rules with different selection methods, cannot claim parity in pay scales based on equal pay for equal work principle. Meanwhile, the respondent teachers maintained that despite their long service and regularization, they were denied benefits available to regular municipal employees. They sought proper pay scales, service benefits, and regular pension benefits instead of the contributory pension scheme.
The Decision
Firstly, examining the definition of 'Appointing Authority' under both the 1998 Rules and relevant municipal laws, the court found no difference in appointment procedures and service conditions between regular municipal employees and Shikshakarmis appointed under the 1998 Rules. Secondly, the court analyzed the evolution of relevant rules, noting that the 2008 Rules provided for merger of Shikshakarmis appointed under the 1998 Rules. Under these rules, the teachers remained under the administrative and disciplinary control of Nagreeya Nikay, entitled to benefits similar to regular teachers in the School Education Department.
Thirdly, the court considered the impact of the Madhya Pradesh School Education Service (Teaching Cadre) Service Conditions and Recruitment Rules, 2018, which merged all teachers appointed under local bodies into the state teaching cadre. The court emphasized that this merger effectively made them state government employees, with their services counting from their initial appointment dates. The court concluded that the teachers were entitled to all benefits, including pension benefits, from their initial appointment dates, as they were now under the absolute control of the School Education Department at par with government teachers. The court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming the lower court's order protecting the teachers' rights to full-service benefits.
Decided on: 22-10-2024
Neutral Citation: 2024:MPHC-IND:30394
Counsel for the Appellant: Shri Kamlesh Mandloi
Counsel for the Respondent/State: Shri Sudeep Bhargava, Deputy Advocate General
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 279