Gyan Chand Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

1 WP. No.43546 of 2025
THE IN HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
th
ON THE 15 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 43546 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC030285832025
GYAN CHAND JAIN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devraj Vishwakarma – Advocate for petitioners through video
conferencing.
Shri Prabhat Pateriya – Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the controversy,
involved in the instant petition, has already been decided by this Court vide
order dated 14.10.2026 passed in W.P. No.6923/2026 (Laxman Singh
Dhakar and others Vs. State of M.P. and others).
2. Learned counsel for respondents/State could not distinguish the facts
of the present case to the aforesaid case.
3. The order dated 14.10.2026 passed in Laxman Singh (supra) is
quoted below for ready reference and convenience:-
“Since the controversy involved in the instant writ petitions
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

2 WP. No.43546 of 2025
is one and the same, they have been heard together and are being
disposed of by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, relief(s) sought for in W.P.
No.6923/2026, which has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, are quoted below for ready reference:-
3. This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has
been filed seeking following relief (s):-3. This petition, under
Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking
following relief (s):-
“(i) That, the respondents be directed to grant adequate
remuneration to the petitioners like others contract
employes of same department Annexure P/4 dated
23.06.25 since date of appointment with arears.
(ii) That, the respondent be directed to paid the cost of
Rs. 10 Lakhs to each Petitioners as granted by the Honble
Apex Court in the Case of Smita Shrivastava.
(iii) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be
awarded.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners were initially appointed as Coordinators under the Non-
Formal Education Scheme of the State Government after
following the prescribed procedure and continued to discharge
their duties until the respective centres were closed or merged with
other educational institutions. Their remuneration was fixed at Rs.
5,000/- per month in the year 2005–2006. It is further submitted
that the State Government introduced a selection process for the
appointment of former Coordinators and Supervisors as Samvida
Shala Shikshaks. The petitioners appeared in the eligibility
examination conducted by the M.P. Professional Examination
Board, Bhopal, in August 2008 and successfully qualified.
However, the respondents subsequently issued circulars dated
05.10.2009 and 09.12.2010, imposing additional conditions
regarding continuity of service during the period from 21.04.1999
to 22.04.2000, which were not prescribed in the original selection
process or the applicable rules, thereby depriving the petitioners of
appointment despite their having qualified in the examination.
Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid conditions and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

3 WP. No.43546 of 2025
retrospective amendments were challenged before this Court,
which granted relief to similarly situated candidates in the case of
Anil Bhatt , reported in 2012 (2) MPLJ. The writ appeal, review
petition and Special Leave Petition preferred by the State
Government were also unsuccessful. Thereafter, in the case of
Samita Shrivastav v. State of Madhya Pradesh SLP (C) No.
23966-23968/202 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court strongly deprecated
the arbitrary and mala fide conduct of the State Government in
repeatedly denying appointment to a candidate who had qualified
in the selection examination held in 2008. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court directed her appointment with continuity of service, without
back wages and awarded exemplary costs of Rs. 10,00,000/-, with
a further direction to recover the amount from the officers
responsible for the illegal and mala fide actions. It is further
submitted that in compliance with the aforesaid judgment, the
State Government issued a circular dated 26.03.2025, directing the
authorities to consider similarly situated candidates by relaxing the
condition of continuity of service. Consequently, the petitioners,
being similarly situated to the appellant in Samita Shrivastav , were
appointed and posted in their respective institutions, as evident
from Annexure P/1. Therefore, they claim similar consequential
relief, including exemplary costs of Rs. 10,00,000/- each, on
account of the prolonged and unjustified denial of their lawful
claims. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have
been pursuing their claims for nearly 15 years, whereas their
remuneration has remained fixed at Rs. 5,000/- per month since
2005–2006. In view of inflation and the rising cost of living, the
said amount has become grossly inadequate. It is contended that
the petitioners are not claiming parity with regular teachers but
seek reasonable enhancement of their remuneration in accordance
with the constitutional mandate under Articles 23 and 43 of the
Constitution of India. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the
minimum wage rates notified by the State Government with effect
from 01.10.2025, ranging from Rs. 12,150/- to Rs. 16,494/- per
month for different categories of workers, only to demonstrate the
inadequacy of the remuneration presently paid to the petitioners.
In support of their claim, learned counsel relies upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in People's Union for Democratic
Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235 , wherein the Court
explained the constitutional prohibition against forced labour
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

4 WP. No.43546 of 2025
under Article 23 and observed that payment of nominal
remuneration may, in appropriate circumstances, amount to
exploitation. It is argued that the State, being a model employer, is
expected to provide fair and reasonable remuneration to ensure a
dignified standard of living. Lastly, learned counsel submits that
the petitioners approached the district authorities seeking
enhancement of their remuneration but no effective relief was
granted, as the matter was stated to fall within the domain of the
State Government. Accordingly, it is prayed that the respondents
be directed to enhance their remuneration to a reasonable amount
and grant appropriate consequential relief, including exemplary
costs, in view of the prolonged litigation and repeated denial of
their legitimate claims.
5.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
the petition is misconceived and that the petitioners were
appointed as contractual teachers on fixed
honorarium/remuneration under the express terms and conditions
of their appointment, without any entitlement to the regular pay
scale. It is contended that enhancement of contractual
remuneration is a policy matter within the domain of the State
Government and no direction for such enhancement can be issued
by this Court. The principle of equal pay for equal work is not
applicable, as the petitioners' service conditions, recruitment
process and duties are distinct from those of regular employees
and other categories of contractual employees. It is further
submitted that the judgment passed in the case of Smita
Shrivastava (supra) has been duly complied with by granting
appointment but the benefits granted therein were confined to the
facts of that particular case and do not entitle the petitioners to
enhanced remuneration or compensation of Rs. 10 lakh each. The
petitioners have no vested legal right to claim higher remuneration
or automatic progression, and no legal or fundamental right has
been violated. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for dismissal of
the petition, including the prayer for interim relief.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7.
The Schedule I of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida
Shala Shikshak (Niyojan Evam Samvida Ki Shartein) Niyam,
2005, prescribes remuneration of Samvida Shala Shikshak and as
per the said Schedule, the Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

5 WP. No.43546 of 2025
entitled to remuneration of Rs.5,000/-.
8. When a specific query put by this Court, learned counsel for
petitioners submits that till 2011 respondents have granted
Rs.5,000/- as remuneration to other similarly situated Samvida
Shala Shikshak Grade III. Thereafter, they have been declared as
Assistant Teachers.
9. At present near about 40-45 Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade
III are available in the State of Madhya Pradesh and they are still
getting Rs.5,000/- as remuneration as per Rules, 2005. It is
submitted that in compliance of GAD Circular dated 22.07.2023,
the School Education Department has issued the order dated
23.06.2025 (Annexure P-4) and new remuneration for contractual
services has been extended in following manner:
jkT; f'k{kk dsUnz
iqLrd Hkou] ch&foax] vjsjk fgYl] Hkksiky& 462011
nwjHkk"k% ¼0755½ 2768390] 91]92]94]95 QSDl% 2552363]2760561
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
dzekad jkf'kds@foRr @2025@2963 Hkksiky fnukad 23&06&25
e-iz- 'kklu lkekU;] iz'kklu foHkkx ds vkns'k dzekad
lh&5&2@2018@1@3 Hkksiky fnukad 22-07-2023 ds vuqikyu esa e-iz- lexz f'k{kk
vfHk;ku dh jkT; dk;Zdkfj.kh lfefr ds cSBd fnukad 31-08-2023 ds ,ts.Mk
dzekad 3 vuqlkj lafonk ij dk;Zjr vf/kdkjh deZpkjh ds U;wure osru esa
miHkksDrk ewY; lwpdkad ds vk/kkj ij la'kksf/kr ifjyfC/k;ka fn;s tkus dk fu.kZ;
fy;k x;kA
2@ e-iz- 'kklu] foRr foHkkx dk vkns'k dzekad ,@11&3@2025 @fu;e
pkj fnukad 12-06-2025 ds vuqlkj 01-04-2025 ls lafonk ij fu;qDr
vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa ds ikfjJfed esa 2-94 izfr'kr miHkksDrk ewY; lwpdkad
dh o`f) dh x;h gSA dk;kZy;hu vkns'k dzekad jkf'kds@foRr@2024@4563 Hkksiky
fnukad 07-10-2024 esa 2-94 izfr'kr dh o`f) mijkar fnukad 01-04-2025 ls uohu
ikfjJfed dk fu/kkZj.k fuEukuqlkj gS%&
l-
lafonk in
dk inuke
orZeku
ekfld
ikfjJfe
esfVªDl
uohu
ikfjJfed
01-04-2025 ls
dz
ysoy
d
ns;
1 2 3 4 5
1 Hk`R;@
pkSdhnkj
21100 1 21800
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

6 WP. No.43546 of 2025
2 okgu
pkyd
26500 4 27300
3 fyfid 26500 4 27300
4 MkVk ,aVªh
vkWijsVj 1
31901 4 32901
MkVk ,aVªh
vkWijsVj 2
26500 4 27300
5 lgk;d
34400 6 35500
okMZu
6 eksckby
34400 6 35500
L=ksr
lykgdkj
7 ys[kkiky
¼01 vizSy
1
2018 ds iwoZ
34400 6 35500
ls fu;qDr½
ys[kkiky
¼01 vizSy
1
34400 6 35500
2018 ds
i'pkr
fu;qDr½
8 LVsuksxzkQj 39000 7 40200
9 ,evkbZ,l
44600 8 46000
dkWfMZusVj
10 Mªk¶VeSu 44600 8 46000
11 mi;a=h 44600 8 46000
12 fodkl[k.M
44850 8 46250
L=ksr
leUo;d
¼chvkjlh@
fodkl[k.M
vdknfed
ldUo;d
13 lgk-
ifj;kstuk
44600 8 46000
leUo;d
¼vkbZbZMh½
14 O;k[;krk 49200 9 50700
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

7 WP. No.43546 of 2025
15 ftyk
efgyk
leUo;d
44850 8 46250
ckfydk
f'k{kk
16 lgk;d
ifj;kstuk
58000 10 59800
leUo;d
¼foRr½
17 izksxzkej 58000 10 59800
18 lgk;d
58000 10 59800
;a=h
19 lgk;d
izca/kd
68120 10 70220
mijksDrkuqlkj inksa ds lEeq[k uohu ikfjJfed fnukad 01-04-2025 ls vkxkeh
fnukad rd izHkko'khy jgsxkA
lapkyd
jkT; f'k{kk dsUnz^^
10. Petitioners are a Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III and the
post is equivalent to Class III post and vide order dated
23.06.2025, respondents have extended the new /higher
remuneration to other Class III persons. It is submitted that as the
post of petitioners has not been mentioned in the aforesaid order
dated 23.06.2025 they have not been granted the higher
remuneration as per order dated 23.06.2025. It is further submitted
that the State Government has prescribed the minimum wages for
unskilled labourer as Rs.12,150/- for semi-skilled as Rs.13,146/-
and for skilled as Rs.14,869/- per month and in case of highly
skilled labourer minimum wages as Rs.16,494/- per month. It is
further submitted that petitioners who are equivalent to teachers are
getting Rs.5,000/-. Even the unskilled labourer is receiving
minimum Rs.12,150/- and despite petitioners holding the
equivalent post of teachers, they are receiving Rs.5,000/- as per
Rules, 2005.
11. The doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is flowing from
Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India. This Article is under the
directive principles in the Constitution. This principle can be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

8 WP. No.43546 of 2025
pressed into service when it is read with Article 14 of the
Constitution. However, for making it a reality, one has to prove the
wholesome equality.
12. The Apex Court in Monirujjaman Mullick's case (supra)
held as under:—
“We are of the view that the non-formal educational
centres cannot be equated with the primary schools which
are regularly run by the Education Department of the State
Government. Apart from the basic qualitative differences
between the two institutions even the nature of work of the
non-formal instructors and the primary school teachers is
not identical. The method of appointment, the source of
recruitment, method of teaching, hours of the teaching and
the mode of payment are entirely different. In the facts and
circumstances of this case the High Court fell into patent
error in applying the principle of “equal pay for equal
work”.
13. The Apex Court in its latest judgment, reported in (2011) 11
SCC 122, Steel Authority of India Limited v. Dibyendu
Bhattacharya , held as under:—
“Parity of pay can be claimed by invoking the provisions
of Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India while
establishing that the eligibility, mode of
selection/recruitment, nature and quality of work and
duties and effort, reliability, confidentiality, dexterity,
functional need and responsibilities and status of both the
posts are identical. The functions may be same but the
skills and the responsibilities may be really and
substantially different. The other post may not require any
higher qualification, seniority or other like factors granting
parity in pay scales depends upon the comparative
evaluation of job and equation of posts. The person
claiming parity must plead necessary averments and prove
that all things are equal between the posts concerned. Such
a complex issue cannot be, adjudicated by evaluating the
affidavits filed by the parties. In other words, the equality
clause can be invoked in the matter of pay scales only
when there is wholesome/wholesale identity between the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

9 WP. No.43546 of 2025
holders of two posts. The burden of establishing right and
parity in employment is only on the person claiming such
right.”
The Apex Court in the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of
India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 , held as under:—
8. It is true that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is
not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental
right. But it certainly is a constitutional goal. Article 39( d ) of
the Constitution proclaims “equal pay for equal work for both
men and women” as a directive principle of State Policy.
“Equal pay for equal work for both men and women” means
equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the
sexes. directive principles, as has been pointed out in some of
the judgments of this Court have to be read into the
fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Article 14 of
the Constitution enjoins the State not to deny any person
equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and
Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity
for all citizens in matters relating to employment or
appointment to any office under the State. These equality
clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone.
To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the
Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with
the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality
clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal
pay. Whether the special procedure prescribed by a statute for
trying alleged robber-barons and smuggler kings or for dealing
with tax evaders is discriminatory, whether a particular
governmental policy in the matter of grant of licences or
permits confers unfettered discretion on the Executive, whether
the take-over of the empires of industrial tycoons is arbitrary
and unconstitutional and other questions of like nature, leave
the millions of people of this country untouched. Questions
concerning wages and the like, mundane they may be, are yet
matters of vital concern to them and it is there, if at all that the
equality clauses of the Constitution have any significance to
them. The Preamble to the Constitution declares the solemn
resolution of the people of India to constitute India into a
Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic. Again the word
“socialist” must mean something. Even if it does not mean ‘to
each according to his need’, it must at least mean “equal pay for
equal work”. “The principle of “equal pay for equal work” is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

10 WP. No.43546 of 2025
expressly recognized by all socialist systems of law, e.g.,
Section 59 of the Hungarian Labour Code, para 2 of Section
111 of the Czechoslovak Code, Section 67 of the Bulgarian
Code, Section 40 of the Code of the German Democratic
Republic, para 2 of Section 33 of the Rumanian Code. Indeed
this principle has been incorporated in several western Labour
Codes too. Under provisions in Section 31 (g. No. 2d) of Book
I of the French Code du Travail, and according to Argentinian
law, this principle must be applied to female workers in all
collective bargaining agreements. In accordance with Section 3
of the Grundgesetz of the German Federal Republic, and
Clause 7, Section 123 of the Mexican Constitution, the
principle is given universal significance” (vide International
Labour Law by Istvan Szaszy, p. 265). The Preamble to the
Constitution of the International Labour Organisation
recognises the principle of ‘equal remuneration for work of
equal value’ as constituting one of the means of achieving the
improvement of conditions “involving such injustice, hardship
and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest
so great that the peace and harmony of the world are
imperilled”. Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the
Preamble and Article 39 ( d ), we are of the view that the
principle “equal pay for equal work” is deducible from those
Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales
of pay based on no classification or irrational classification
though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical
work under the same employer.
The Apex Court while passing the said judgment has
considered all the judgments delivered on this aspect on earlier
occasion. Thus, it is not necessary for this Court to deal with each
and every judgment relied upon by the parties. The Apex Court
while summarizing has laid down the aforesaid legal principles.
14. However, before parting with the case, it is also relevant to
refer to Article 23 of the Constitution of India, which reads as
under:—
“ Article 23. 1. Everyone has the right to work, to free
choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions
of work and to protection against unemployment.
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to
equal pay for equal work.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

11 WP. No.43546 of 2025
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable
remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an
existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if
necessary, by other means of social protection.
4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions
for the protection of his interests.”
Article 23 was considered and interpreted by Supreme Court in
catena of judgments. In Peoples' Union for Democratic Rights v.
Union of India , (1982) 3 SCC 235, the Apex Court held as unde:
—
“It is difficult to imagine that the Constitution makers
should have intended to strike only at certain forms of
forced labour leaving it open to the socially or
economically powerful sections of the community to
exploit the poor and weaker sections by resorting to
other forms of forced labour. Could there be any logic or
reason in enacting that if a person is forced to give
labour or service to another without receiving any
remuneration at all it should be regarded as a pernicious
practice sufficient to attract the condemnation of Article
23, but if some remuneration is paid for it, then it should
be outside the inhibition of that Article? If this were the
true interpretation, Article 23 would be reduced to a
mere rope of sand, for it would then be the easiest thing
in an exploitative society for a person belonging to a
socially or economically dominant class to exact labour
or service from a person belonging to the deprived and
vulnerable section of the community by paying a
negligible amount of remuneration and thus escape the
rigour of Article 23.
The Apex Court in the same judgment again opined as under:—
“ Moreover, in a country like India where there is so
much poverty and unemployment and there is no
equality of bargaining power, a contract of service may
appear on its face voluntary but it may, in reality, be
involuntary, because while entering into the contract,
the employee, by reason of his economically helpless
condition, may have been faced with Hobson's choice,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

12 WP. No.43546 of 2025
either to starve or to submit to the exploitative terms
dictated by the powerful employer. It would be a travesty
of justice to hold the employee in such a case to the
terms of the contract and to compel him to serve the
employer even though he may not wish to do so. ”
It is therefore clear that when the petitioners alleged that minimum
wage was not paid to the workmen employed by the contractors,
the complaint was really in effect and substance a complaint
against violation of the fundamental right of the workmen under
Article 23.”
(Emphasis supplied)
15. If the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court is scanned
in its totality and the principles scrutinized, it would be seen that
the Supreme Court has laid stress to the fact about payment of at
least the minimum wages to an employee for working in the
establishment as a fundamental right of the employee and anything
done to deprive an employee of this right, would be nothing but an
act amounting to ‘begar’. In a welfare State the Government has to
act as a model employer. The State is required to set an example
by giving wages and salary sufficient enough to sustain an
employee and his family. The State cannot be permitted to act like
a private employer and exploit the working class doing duties for
the State and citizens.
16. Article 43 of the Constitution of India, which is under directive
principles, reads as under:—
“ Living wage, etc., for workers .— The State shall
endeavour to secure, by suitable legislation or economic
organisation or in any other way, to all workers
agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a living
wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of
life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural
opportunities and, in particular, the State shall
endeavour to promote cottage industries on an
individual or co-operative basis in rural areas.
The purpose of directive principles and its implementation is
considered in extenso by Supreme Court in the case of His
Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala ,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

13 WP. No.43546 of 2025
reported in (1973) 4 SCC 225 (13 Judges).
The following findings from the judgment in His Holiness
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru (supra) are relevant: —
“While most cherished freedoms and rights have been
guaranteed the Government has been laid under a
solemn duty to give effect to the Directive Principles.
Both Parts III and IV which embody them have to be
balanced and harmonized then alone the dignity of the
individual can be achieved. It was to give effect to the
main objectives in the Preamble that Parts III and IV
were enacted.
Parts III and IV essentially form a basic element of the
Constitution without which its identity will completely
change. A number of provision in Parts III and IV are
fashioned of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 39(b) and (c) together with the other provisions
of the Constitution contain one of the main objectives,
namely, the building of a welfare State and an
egalitarian social order in our country. While the
Constitution-makers envisaged development in the
social, economic and political fields, they did not desire
that it should be a society where a citizen will not have
the dignity of the individual. Part III of the Constitution
shows that the founding fathers were equally anxious
that it should be a society where the citizen will enjoy
the various freedoms and such rights as are the basic
elements of those freedoms without which there can be
no dignity of the individual. Our Constitution-makers
did not contemplate any disharmony between the
Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles. They
were meant to supplement one another. It can well be
said that the Directive Principles prescribed the goal to
be attained and the Fundamental Rights laid down the
means by which that goal was to be achieved.
The Directive Principles embodied in Part IV of the
Constitution or at any rate most of them are as
important as the rights of individuals. The Directive
Principles and the Fundamental Rights mainly proceed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

14 WP. No.43546 of 2025
on the basis of Human Rights. Freedom is nothing else
but a chance to be better. It is this liberty to do better
that is the theme of the Directive Principles of State
Policy in Part IV of the Constitution.
The Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles
constitute the ‘conscience’ of our Constitution. The
purpose of the Fundamental Rights is to create an
egalitarian society, to free all citizens from coercion or
restriction by society and to make liberty available for
all. The purpose of the Directive Principles is to fix
certain social and economic goals for immediate
attainment by bringing about a non-violent social
revolution. Through such a social revolution the
Constitution seeks to fulfil the basic needs of the
common man and to change the structure of our society.
It aims at making the Indian masses free in the positive
sense. Without faithfully implementing the Directive
Principles, it is not possible to achieve the Welfare State
contemplated by the Constitution.
What is implicit in the Constitution is that there is a
duty on the Courts to interpret the Constitution and the
laws to further the Directive Principles which under
Article 37, are fundamental in the governance of the
country.
I think there are rights which inhere in human beings
because they are human beings-whether you call them
natural rights or by some other appellation is
immaterial. As the amble indicates, it was to secure the
basic human rights like liberty and equality that the
people gave unto themselves the Constitution and these
basic rights are an essential feature of the Constitution;
the Constitution was also enacted by the people to
secure justice, political, social and economic. Therefore,
the moral rights embodied in Part IV of the Constitution
are equally an essential feature of it, the only difference
being that the moral rights embodied in Part IV are not
specifically enforceable as against the State by a citizen
in a Court of law in case the State fails to implement its
duty but, nevertheless, they are fundamental in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

15 WP. No.43546 of 2025
governance of the country and all the organs of the
State, including the judiciary, are bound to enforce those
directives.
The Nation stands today at the cross-roads of history
and exchanging the time-honoured place of the phrase,
may I say that the Directive Principles of State Policy
should not be permitted to become “mere rope of sand”.
If the State fails to create conditions in which the
Fundamental Freedoms could be enjoyed by all, the
freedom of the few will be at the mercy of the many and
then all freedoms will vanish. In order, therefore, to
preserve their freedom, the privileged few must part
with a portion of it.”
17. True it is that the respondents are giving the payment in the
name of “honorarium” to the Gurujis/petitioners. As per settled
legal position, “honorarium” is not salary. However, without
entering into this debate any further, I would only like to observe
that whatever emoluments in the name of honorarium is being
paid to the Gurujis/petitioners is used by them for the purpose of
keeping their body and soul together. In other words, the payment
in the shape of “honorarium” is their livelihood which is used by
them to sustain their family in the present days of price hike. To
run the cart of their family, legitimate expectation is that payment
should be at least that much which can provide them a dignified
life of a human being.
18. Pausing here for a moment, it is relevant to refer the recent
notification issued by the State Government introducing the rates
of minimum wages for unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled workers.
This Court is conscious of this fact that Minimum Wages Act as
such is not applicable on Gurujis/petitioners. By no stretch of
imagination Gurujis/petitioners can be brought within the ambit of
the said Act. However, the said notification is referred only with a
view to show that on the one hand the Government is fixing the
rates for the skilled, unskilled and semi-skilled categories in
Government and private employment, which is much higher than
what has been paid to the Gurujis/petitioners. On the cost of
repetition, it can be said that the petitioners cannot claim the
minimum wages under the said Act. However, the minimum
wages are determined by a scientific method which includes the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

16 WP. No.43546 of 2025
factor of inflations/price index and other relevant factors to ensure
that such workers can live in human condition. These wages show
the bottom line and “minimum” amount necessary for a dignified
human life. The “minimum” amount of wages so determined
under the said Act, when examined in juxtaposition with
Honorarium of ‘Gurujis/petitioners’, it clearly shows that present
amount of Honorarium is grossly inadequate.
19. The purpose of quoting this example is only to show that
the minimum wages are derived by a scientific method to ensure
that the workers may sustain themselves in the era of inflation and
price hike.
20. Thus, merely because petitioners are not getting “salary”
and payment made to them is termed as “honorarium”, should not
deprive them from getting adequate amount which is in
consonance with the constitutional mandate flowing from Articles
23 and 43 of the Constitution of India.
21. In totality, I am unable to hold that the petitioners are either
entitled for equal pay for equal work or for even minimum of the
scale because there is no wholesome parity demonstrated by them.
I am also unable to hold that the petitioners are entitled to get
minimum wages. However, on the basis of aforesaid analysis, I am
inclined to direct the respondents to reconsider the amount of
“honorarium” which is being paid to the petitioners in the present
days of price hike. If necessary, the respondents may appoint an
expert body for the said purpose. However, the entire exercise
should be done keeping in view the principles flowing from
Articles 23 and 43 of the Constitution of India.
22. Thus, in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to direct the
respondents to reconsider the adequacy of amount of
“honorarium” payable to the Gurujis/petitioners. This exercise be
completed within three months and appropriate orders be passed.
23. With the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of.
24. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is disposed of
also.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

17 WP. No.43546 of 2025
4. Considering the aforesaid, it is directed that the order passed in the
case of Laxman Singh Dhakar (supra) shall apply mutatis mutandis in the
present case also with full force.
5. Accordingly, this petition is also disposed of.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
Abhi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM