{"id":221180,"date":"1998-12-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-11-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-shikshak-congress-ors-vs-r-p-f-commissioner-jabalpur-on-1-december-1998"},"modified":"2017-02-02T12:44:49","modified_gmt":"2017-02-02T07:14:49","slug":"m-p-shikshak-congress-ors-vs-r-p-f-commissioner-jabalpur-on-1-december-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-shikshak-congress-ors-vs-r-p-f-commissioner-jabalpur-on-1-december-1998","title":{"rendered":"M.P.Shikshak Congress & Ors vs R.P.F. Commissioner, Jabalpur & … on 1 December, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M.P.Shikshak Congress & Ors vs R.P.F. Commissioner, Jabalpur & … on 1 December, 1998<\/div>\n
Bench: Sujata V. Manohar, G.B. Pattanaik.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nM.P.SHIKSHAK CONGRESS & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nR.P.F.\tCOMMISSIONER, JABALPUR & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t01\/12\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nSUJATA V. MANOHAR, G.B. PATTANAIK.\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
O R D E R
\nThe present appeals arise  from\t the  judgments\t and
\norders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court under which the High
\nCourt  has  unheld the orders of the Regional Provident Fund
\nCommissioner dated 24th of April, 1991\tana  15th  of  July,
\n1991  directing\t the  employer\tconcerned, being the schools
\nmentioned in the said orders, to deposit,  the\tcontribution
\nof  the\t employees as well as the employers to the provident
\nfund constituted under the  Employees’\tProvident  Fund\t and
\nMiscellaneous  Provisions  Act,\t 1952,\tfor  the  period 1st
\nAugust, 1982 to 1st December,  1988.\tThe  writ  petitions
\nfiled  by the appellants to challenge these orders have been
\ndismissed by the High Court.  The appellants have filed\t the
\npresent\t appeals  in  a representative capacity on behalf of
\nthe teachers and other employees  of  variuous\tprivate\t put
\naided schools in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
\nIn  the\t State\tof Madhya Pradesh, under the Central
\nProvinces and Berar  Education\tManual,\t 1928,\tin  Appendix
\nXVIII  there  was a scheme constituting a provident fund for
\nteachers  in  non-pensionable  service,\t under\tRule  3\t  of
\nAppendix  XVIII the proportion of contribution to be paid by
\nthe teachers was specified, while under Rule 4, contribution
\nby the Government and by the management of the school to the
\nProvident Fund was also specified.  Pule 6  dealt  with\t the
\nmanagement of the Contributory Provident Fund.
\nIn 1978, the Madhya  Pradesh  Act  20  of  1978\t was
\npromulgated  known  as\tthe Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Sikshan
\nSanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmchariyon  ke\t ventano  ka
\nSandaya) Adhiniyam,  1978.    The preamble of the Act states
\nthat it is an act to make provision for\t regulating  payment
\nof salaries to teachers and other employees of NonGovernment
\nand Schools receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government
\nand   Non-Government   Educational   Institutions  for\tHigh
\nEducation receiving grants from the  Madhya  Pradesh  Uchcha
\nShiksha\t Anudan\t Ayog  and  other matters ancillary thereto.
\nThe Act was, therefore, basically meant to regulate  payment
\nof  salaries to the employees of the Institutions covered by
\nthat Act.\n<\/p>\n
Under\tSection\t  5   of   the\tsaid  Act  1978\t and
\ninstitutional fund was constituted for payment of salary  to
\nthe teachers.  The section prescribes the amounts which have
\nto be  deposited  in  the institutional fund.  Under Section
\n6(2), the State Government or the Ayog, as the case may\t be,
\nwas required to place to the credit of the institution fund,
\nin  advance, such sums as may be required for the payment of
\nsalary\tto  teachers  and  employees  of   the\t institution
\nincluding  the\tinstitutions  contribution  to the provident
\nfund accounts at the rate at which it was required  to\tmake
\nsuch  contribution under any enactment for the time being in
\nforce.\tTherefore, the\tamount\twhich  was  required  to  be
\ncontributed   as   the\tinstitutions’  contribution  to\t any
\nprovident fund, was now required  to  be  deposited  in\t the
\ninstitutional  fund, was now required to be deposited in the
\ninstitutional fund.  The Act of 1978 did not  prescribe\t any
\nscheme for provident fund as such.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore,  the\t existing  scheme  for\tcontributory
\nprovident   fund  under\t the  Central  Provinces  and  Berar
\nEducational Manual, 1928 continued to remain in force except
\nthat the institution’s contribution was now required  to  be
\ndeposited in  the  institutional  fund.\t The Rules framed in
\n1978 under the said Act 1978 also did not  set\tup  any\t new
\nscheme for  contributory  provident  fund.  The Rule of 1978
\nalso did  not  prescribe  any  rate  of\t contribution  to  a
\ncontributory provident fund.\n<\/p>\n
The  Rules  of\t1978  were, however, replaced by the
\nAshasiya Shikshan Sanstha Institutional\t Fund  Rules,  1983.
\nUnder  these  Rules, for the first time, specific provisions
\nwere made under Rule 8 for opening of accounts\tfor  deposit
\nof  salary and teachers’ contribution to the provident fund.
\nUnder Rule 10, the deductions to be  made,  inter  alia,  in
\nrespect of provident fund were also require to be set out in
\nthe  statement in Form IV prescribed under the Rules and the
\namounts had to be  dealt  with\tas  prescribed\tunder  those
\nRules.\tSub-rule (6) of Rule 10, however, was as follows :
\n\t“10(6) :Notwithstanding\t anything
\n\tcontained in rule 8,9 and this rule; where
\n\tthe provisions of the Employees\t Provident
\n\tFund  and  Miscellaneous  Provisions  Act,
\n\t1952 (No.    19\t of  1952)  apply  to  the
\n\tteachers   and\t other\temployees  of  any
\n\tinstitution, the  provident  Fund  account
\n\tand other record relating thereto shall be
\n\tmaintained    in   accordance\twith   the
\n\tprovisions of the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
In 1952, much prior to the Madhya Pradesh Act 20  of
\n1978,  the  Employees’\tProvident  Fund\t and  Miscellanceous
\nProvisions  Act,  1952\twas  promulgated  by   the   Central
\nGovernment.   The said Act, however, initially did not apply
\nto educational\tinstitutions.\t Hence\tthe   teachers\t and
\nemployee  of  the  aided  schools in Madhya Pradesh remained
\nunder the  Contributory\t Provident  scheme  of\tthe  Central
\nProvinces and  Berar  Educational  Manual.    Even after the
\nMadhya Pradesh Act 20 of 1978  came  into  force,  the\tsame
\nscheme\tcontinued  with\t the  modification  set\t out  above.
\nHowever, by Notification in the Gazette of India  dated\t 6th
\nof  March,  1982, in exercise of powers conferred by Section
\n1(30(b) of the Employees’ Provident Fund and  Miscellanceous
\nProvisions  Act,  the  Central\tGovernment specified certain
\nclasses of establishments in which 29 or more  persons\twere
\nemployed, as  covered  by the said Central Act of 1952.\t The
\nestablishments so covered included any\tCollege\t whether  or
\nnot  affiliated\t with  the  University,\t as  also any School
\nwhether or not recognised or aided a by the Central  or\t the
\nState Government.   It also covered any other institution in
\nwhich the activity of imparting knowledge  or  training\t was
\ncarried on.  by virtue of this Notification, therefore, from
\n6th  of\t March\t1982,  the  Employees’\tProvident  Fund\t and
\nMiscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 became applicable,  inter
\nalia,  to  to  the  aided  schools  of\tthe  State of Madhya
\nPradesh.\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter,  by\t an amendment to Section 16(1)(b) of
\nthe Employees’ Provident Fund and  Miscellaneous  Provisions
\nAct,  1952  made  on 1st of August, 1988, it was provided as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
\t“Section 16(1): The Act shall not apply –\n<\/p>\n
\t(b)to\tany   other    establishment
\n\tbelonging  to  or under the control of the
\n\tCentral Government or a\t State\tGovernment
\n\tand  whose  employees  are entitled to the
\n\tbenefit of contributory provident fund\tor
\n\told  age  pension  in  accordance with any
\n\tscheme\tor  rule  framed  by  the  Central
\n\tGovernment   or\t  the\tState\tGovernment
\n\tgoverning such benefits; ……”\n<\/p>\n
We  have  to  examine  whether,\t by the amendment of
\nSection 16(1)(b), with, effect from 1st of August, 1988, the
\nEmployees’ Provident Fund and Miscellanceous Provisions Act,
\n1952 ceased to apply to the employees and  teachers  of\t the
\naided schools\tof   the  State\t of  Madhya  Pradesh.\t The
\nrespondents contend that in any event, the said Central\t Act
\nof  1952 was applicable to all teachers and employees of the
\naided schools in the State of Madhya  Pradesh  from  6th  of
\nMarch, 1982 till 1st August, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellants,  however,  contend that the Central
\nAct, that is to\t say,  the  Employees’\tProvident  Fund\t and
\nMiscellanceous Provisions Act, 1952 is not applicable to the
\naided schools  of the State of Madhya Pradesh.\tThey contend
\nthat the Central Act was a prior Act existing  at  the\ttime
\nwhen the  State\t Act  20 of 1978 came into force.  The State
\nAct of 1978 had received the assent of the president.  Hence
\nunder Article 254(2) of the Constitution, in  the  State  of
\nMadhya\tPradesh,  Act  20  of  1978  would  prevail over the
\nEmployees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous  Provisions\t Act
\n1952.  This argument is fallacious.  Under Article 254(1) of
\nthe  Constitution,  if\tany  provision\tof a law made by the
\nlegislature of a State is repugnant to any  provision  of  a
\nlaw  made  by  Parliament,  which Parliament is competent to
\nenact, then subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law
\nmade by the Parliament, whether passed before or  after\t the
\nlaw made by the legislature of such State, shall prevail and
\nthe  law  made by the legislature of the State shall, to the
\nextent of the repugnancy,  be  void.\tThe  ordinary  rule,
\ntherefore,  is\tthat when both the State legislature as well
\nas Parliament are competent  to\t enact\ta  law\ton  a  given
\nsubject,  it  is  the  law  made  by  Parliament  which will
\nprevail.  The exception which is varved out is under  clause
\n(2) of\tArticle 254.  Under this clause (2) where a law made
\nby the legislature of a State with respect  to\tone  of\t the
\nmatters\t enumerated  in\t the  Concurrent  List\tcontains any
\nprovision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made
\nby Parliament, then the law so made by\tthe  legislature  of
\nsuch   State   shall,  if  it  has  been  reserved  for\t the
\nconsideration of the President and has received his  assent,
\nprevail\t in  the State, Provided that nothing in this clause
\nshall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time  any\t law
\nwith  respect  to the same matter including a law adding to,
\namending, varying or  repealing\t the  law  so  made  by\t the
\nlegislature of the State.\n<\/p>\n
Before clause (2) of Article 254 is attracted, there
\nmust  be  a  repugnancy between any provision of a State law
\nand any\t provision  of\tan  earlier  existing  law  made  by
\nParliament.   In  the  present case, when the Madhya Pradesh
\nAct 20 of 1978 was enacted, there was no repugnancy  between
\nthe  Madhya  Pradesh  Act  20  of  1978\t and  the Employees’
\nProvident Fund and  Miscellaneous  Provisions  Act  of\t1952
\nalready enacted\t by  Parliament.   The Parliamentary Act did
\nnot apply to educational institutions.\tThe State Act  dealt
\nwith  salaries and other ancillary matters governing certain
\neducational institutions.      Therefore,   there   was\t  no
\nrepugnancy between the earlier Parliamentary legislation and
\nthe late   State   legislation.\t   There  was  no  question,
\ntherefore,  of\t the   State   Act   prevailing\t  over\t the
\nParliamentary Act  of  1952.\tIn  fact,  quite clearly the
\nCentral Act did not apply to educational institutions either
\nin the State of Madhya Pradesh or anywhere else.
\nSecondly, as the preamble and  other  provisions  of
\nthe  State  Act 20 of ” 978 show, the primary purpose of the
\nState Act was to make provisions for regulating the  payment
\nof  salaries  to  teachers  and\t other\temployees  of  aided
\nNon-Government schools.\t The Act did not  even\tprovide\t for
\nany scheme  for\t setting  up  a\t Provident  Fund.    The Act
\nincidental required that the institutional  contribution  to
\nany  existing  Provident Fund scheme should be paid into the
\ninstitutional fund set up under the said Act.\t Looking  to
\nthe  pith  and\tsubstance  of the State Act of 1975 also, it
\ncannot be said that it in any way made provisions which were
\nrepugnant to the Employees Provident Fund and  Miscellaneous
\nProvisions Act, 1952.\n<\/p>\n
It was by reason  of  the  Not1fication\t of  th\t of
\nMarch, 1982 that the Central Act was extended to educational
\ninstitutions.\t The   Employees   ‘   Provident   Fund\t and
\nMiscelIaneous  Provisions  Act,\t 1952,\t therefore,   became
\napplicable  to\teducational  institutions  in  the  State of
\nMadhya Pradesh for the first time on  6th  of  March,  1982.
\nThis  was  much later than the enactment of the State Act 20
\nof 1378.   The\tParIiamentary  enactment,  therefore,  would
\nprevail\t over  the  State  Act 20 of 1978, assuming that the
\nState Act  of  1978  created  of  affected  any\t scheme\t for
\nProvident Fund Article 254(2), therefore, has no application
\nin the present case.\n<\/p>\n
The  Appellants,  however, relied upon a decision of
\nthis Court in the case of Pt.Rishikesh & Anr.\t v.    Salma
\nBegum  (Smt.)<\/a>  ([1995]\t4  SCC 718) in which this Court said
\nthat if a law is made by Parliament at a given date, but  is
\nbrought\t into  force  at  a  later  date,  then,  if  in the
\ninterregnum, a State law is  made  which  has  received\t the
\nassent\tof  the President the State law will prevail because
\nthe law made by Parliament is an earlier law.\t This  ratio
\nhas  no\t application  to  the present case where the Act was
\nalready in force from inception.  This law in force was\t not
\nrepugnant to  the  State  Act.\twhen the State Act came into
\nforce.\tThe Central Act.  however, in the present case,\t was
\nappiled to educational institutions at a date later than the
\nState Act.   Hence the repugnancy arose only at a later date
\nwhen  the  Central  Act\t became\t applicable  to\t educational
\ninstitutions.  In such a situation, there can be no question
\nof  the application of Article 254(2) because the repugnancy
\narose later in point of time than the State Act.   Moreover,
\nin  the\t present  case,\t there\tis no question of repugnancy
\nbetween the two Acts si nce the State Act of 1978  does\t not
\nprovide for any Provident Fund Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
However, after the  application\t of  the  Employees’
\nProvident  Fund\t and  Miscellaneous  Provisions Act, 1952 to
\neducation institutions, in 1963 new Rules were framed by the
\nState of Madhya Pradesh under Act 20 of\t 1978.\t  These\t are
\nreferred to  as\t the  State  Rules of 1383.  Under the State
\nRules of 1983, for the first time a scheme was set  out\t for
\nContributory   Provident  Fund\tcovering  the  teachers\t and
\nemployees of aided school .  The State Government,  however,
\nwas conscious of the fact that the employee ‘ Provident Fund
\nand Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 was applicable in the
\nState of  Madhya  Pradesh.   Therefore, by Rule 10(6) of the
\nState Rules of 1983, it was provided that the scheme as\t set
\nout  in\t the  State  Rules of 1983 would not apply where the
\nprovisions   of\t  the\tEmployees’   provident\t Fund\t and
\nMiscellaneous Provisions   Act,\t  1952\t apply.\t    Clearly,
\ntherefore, far from there Deing\t any  conflict\tbetween\t the
\nState  and the Central Legistation, the State Legislation by
\nRules framed “in 1383 has excluded from the operation of the
\nState scheme as framed under the 1983 rules, those employees
\nto whom the Central Act apples.\n<\/p>\n
In  this  view\tof the matter, there can be no doubt
\nthat for the period 1st August, 1982 to 1st August, 1983 the
\nEmployees’ Proviaent Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions\tAct,
\n1952  was  applicable  to such teachers and employees of the
\naided schools in the State of Madhya Pradesh who are covered
\nby the provisions of the  scheme  framed  thereunder.\t The
\norders\t of   the  Regional  Provident,\t Fund  Commissioner,
\ntherefore, in so far as the  orders  cover  the\t period\t 1st
\nAugust, 1982 to 1st August, 1988 are valid.
\nThe   said   orders,   however,\t also  refer  to  an
\nadditional period from 1st of August, 1988 to 1st  December,
\n1988.\tAccording to the appellants, 1st of August, 1988, by
\nvirtue of the amended Section  16(1)(b)\t of  the  Employees’
\nProvident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 coming
\ninto  effect in the provisions of the 1952 Act are no longer
\napplicable to them.  Section 16(1)(b) provides that the 1952
\nAct will not apply to any establishment under the control of
\nthe State Government whose employees  are  entitled  to\t the
\nbenefit\t of  Contributory  Provident Fund in accordance with
\nany scheme framed by the State\tGovernment  conferring\tsuch
\nbenefits.   Whether  on\t 1st  of August, 1988, there was any
\nscheme in existence of the State Government which  conferred
\nContributory Provident Fund benefit to the employees covered
\nearl ier by the Central Act of 1952 or not is a matter which
\nthe  Regional  Provident  Fund\tConrimissioner\twill have to
\nexamine if such a contention is raised\tbefore\thim  by\t the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
We, therefore, remit the  matter  to  the  concerned
\nRegional  Provident  Fund  Commissioner only for the limited
\npurpose of examining whether for the period 1st\t of  August,
\n1986  to  1st of December, 1988 the provisions of Employees’
\nProvident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions  Act,  1952\t are
\napplicable to  the  concerned  institutions.\tThe  orders,
\nhowever, for the period 1st August, 1982 to 1st August, 1988
\nare upheld.\n<\/p>\n
The  appels are accordingly dismissed with the above
\nmodification.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M.P.Shikshak Congress & Ors vs R.P.F. Commissioner, Jabalpur & … on 1 December, 1998 Bench: Sujata V. Manohar, G.B. Pattanaik. PETITIONER: M.P.SHIKSHAK CONGRESS & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: R.P.F. COMMISSIONER, JABALPUR & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/12\/1998 BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, G.B. PATTANAIK. ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: O R D E R The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-221180","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM.P.Shikshak Congress & Ors vs R.P.F. Commissioner, Jabalpur & ... on 1 December, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-shikshak-congress-ors-vs-r-p-f-commissioner-jabalpur-on-1-december-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.P.Shikshak Congress & Ors vs R.P.F. Commissioner, Jabalpur & ... on 1 December, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-shikshak-congress-ors-vs-r-p-f-commissioner-jabalpur-on-1-december-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1998-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-02T07:14:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-shikshak-congress-ors-vs-r-p-f-commissioner-jabalpur-on-1-december-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-shikshak-congress-ors-vs-r-p-f-commissioner-jabalpur-on-1-december-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.P.Shikshak Congress & Ors vs R.P.F. Commissioner, Jabalpur & … on 1 December, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-02T07:14:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-shikshak-congress-ors-vs-r-p-f-commissioner-jabalpur-on-1-december-1998\"},\"wordCount\":2494,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-shikshak-congress-ors-vs-r-p-f-commissioner-jabalpur-on-1-december-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-shikshak-congress-ors-vs-r-p-f-commissioner-jabalpur-on-1-december-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-shikshak-congress-ors-vs-r-p-f-commissioner-jabalpur-on-1-december-1998\",\"name\":\"M.P.Shikshak Congress & Ors vs R.P.F. Commissioner, Jabalpur & ... on 1 December, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-02T07:14:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-shikshak-congress-ors-vs-r-p-f-commissioner-jabalpur-on-1-december-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-shikshak-congress-ors-vs-r-p-f-commissioner-jabalpur-on-1-december-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-shikshak-congress-ors-vs-r-p-f-commissioner-jabalpur-on-1-december-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.P.Shikshak Congress & Ors vs R.P.F. Commissioner, Jabalpur & … on 1 December, 1998\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M.P.Shikshak Congress & Ors vs R.P.F. Commissioner, Jabalpur & ... on 1 December, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-shikshak-congress-ors-vs-r-p-f-commissioner-jabalpur-on-1-december-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.P.Shikshak Congress & Ors vs R.P.F. Commissioner, Jabalpur & ... on 1 December, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-shikshak-congress-ors-vs-r-p-f-commissioner-jabalpur-on-1-december-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-02T07:14:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-shikshak-congress-ors-vs-r-p-f-commissioner-jabalpur-on-1-december-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-shikshak-congress-ors-vs-r-p-f-commissioner-jabalpur-on-1-december-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.P.Shikshak Congress & Ors vs R.P.F. Commissioner, Jabalpur & … on 1 December, 1998","datePublished":"1998-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-02T07:14:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-shikshak-congress-ors-vs-r-p-f-commissioner-jabalpur-on-1-december-1998"},"wordCount":2494,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-shikshak-congress-ors-vs-r-p-f-commissioner-jabalpur-on-1-december-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-shikshak-congress-ors-vs-r-p-f-commissioner-jabalpur-on-1-december-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-shikshak-congress-ors-vs-r-p-f-commissioner-jabalpur-on-1-december-1998","name":"M.P.Shikshak Congress & Ors vs R.P.F. Commissioner, Jabalpur & ... on 1 December, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-02T07:14:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-shikshak-congress-ors-vs-r-p-f-commissioner-jabalpur-on-1-december-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-shikshak-congress-ors-vs-r-p-f-commissioner-jabalpur-on-1-december-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-shikshak-congress-ors-vs-r-p-f-commissioner-jabalpur-on-1-december-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.P.Shikshak Congress & Ors vs R.P.F. Commissioner, Jabalpur & … on 1 December, 1998"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221180","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=221180"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221180\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=221180"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=221180"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=221180"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}