Laxman Singh Dhakar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31709
1 WP. No. 6923 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
th
ON THE 14 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6923 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030049982026
LAXMAN SINGH DHAKAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Shri Shivendra Singh Raghuvanshi - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri K.K. Prajapati – Government Advocate for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 6682 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030048122026
VIJAY KUMAR YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shivendra Singh Raghuvanshi - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri K.K. Prajapati – Government Advocate for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 49412 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC030327372025
HOTAM SINGH YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/15/2026
6:57:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31709
2 WP. No. 6923 of 2026
Appearance:
Shri Shivendra Singh Raghuvanshi - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri K.K. Prajapati – Government Advocate for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 48201 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC030318752025
RAJA RAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shivendra Singh Raghuvanshi - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri K.K. Prajapati – Government Advocate for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 47320 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC030312822025
UMESH KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shivendra Singh Raghuvanshi - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri K.K. Prajapati – Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Since the controversy involved in the instant writ petitions is one and the
same, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/15/2026
6:57:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31709
3 WP. No. 6923 of 2026
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):-
“(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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/15/2026
6:57:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31709
4 WP. No. 6923 of 2026
despite their having qualified in the examination. Learned counsel submits that
the aforesaid conditions and 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/15/2026
6:57:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31709
5 WP. No. 6923 of 2026
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/15/2026
6:57:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31709
6 WP. No. 6923 of 2026
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/15/2026
6:57:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31709
7 WP. No. 6923 of 2026
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%&
ldz lafonk in dk
orZeku ekfld
esfVªDl ysoy uohu ikfjJfed
01-04-2025 ls ns;
1 2 3 4 5
1 Hk`R;@pkSdhnkj 21100 1 21800
2 okgu pkyd 26500 4 27300
3 fyfid 26500 4 27300
4 MkVk ,aVªh vkWijsVj
inuke
ikfjJfed
31901 4 32901
1
MkVk ,aVªh vkWijsVj
26500 4 27300
2
5 lgk;d okMZu 34400 6 35500
6 eksckby L=ksr
34400 6 35500
lykgdkj
7 ys[kkiky 1 ¼01 vizSy
2018 ds iwoZ ls fu;qDr½
34400 6 35500
ys[kkiky 1 ¼01 vizSy
2018 ds i'pkr fu;qDr½
34400 6 35500
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/15/2026
6:57:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31709
8 WP. No. 6923 of 2026
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 L=ksr
44850 8 46250
leUo;d
¼chvkjlh½@fodkl
[k.M vdknfed
ldUo;d
13 lgk- ifj;kstuk
44600 8 46000
leUo;d
¼vkbZbZMh½
14 O;k[;krk 49200 9 50700
15 ftyk efgyk
leUo;d ckfydk
44850 8 46250
f'k{kk
16 lgk;d ifj;kstuk
58000 10 59800
leUo;d ¼foRr½
17 izksxzkej 58000 10 59800
18 lgk;d ;a=h 58000 10 59800
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/15/2026
6:57:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31709
9 WP. No. 6923 of 2026
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/15/2026
6:57:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31709
10 WP. No. 6923 of 2026
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/15/2026
6:57:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31709
11 WP. No. 6923 of 2026
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 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/15/2026
6:57:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31709
12 WP. No. 6923 of 2026
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for
equal work.
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 under:—
“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, 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. ”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/15/2026
6:57:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31709
13 WP. No. 6923 of 2026
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 , reported in
(1973) 4 SCC 225 (13 Judges).
The following findings from the judgment in His Holiness Kesavananda
Bharati Sripadagalvaru (supra) are relevant: —
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/15/2026
6:57:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31709
14 WP. No. 6923 of 2026
“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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/15/2026
6:57:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31709
15 WP. No. 6923 of 2026
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/15/2026
6:57:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31709
16 WP. No. 6923 of 2026
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 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/15/2026
6:57:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31709
17 WP. No. 6923 of 2026
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.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
Ahmad
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/15/2026
6:57:19 PM