Udaiveer Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 7698 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Udaiveer Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 April, 2025

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8082




                                                              1                               WP-11368-2025
                              IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT GWALIOR
                                                          BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
                                                    ON THE 8 th OF APRIL, 2025
                                                WRIT PETITION No. 11368 of 2025
                                                   UDAIVEER RAWAT
                                                        Versus
                                      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                   Mr. Devesh Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
                                   Mr. G. K. Agrawal - Govt. Advocate for State.

                                                                  ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

"7.1 That, a direction may kindly be given to the respondents to give the service benefit and minimum pay scale of the post of the permanent classified Labour from the date of his Classification as permanent employee to the petitioner. And pay

the arrears of salary on fixation of pay along with all consequence benefits with interest from the date of his Classification.

7.2 That, the respondents may further be directed to treat the petitioner at par with their similarly placed co-employees with seniority and consequential benefits on the post of Labour from the date of his Classification.

7.3 That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8082

2 WP-11368-2025 deem fit and proper may also be given to the petitioner along with costs."

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that by order dated 05.05.2011, petitioner was classified as labourer. In the year 2016, he was conferred the status of Sthaikarmi but he has not been paid the minimum of regular pay scale without increment from the order of classification till conferral of status of Sthaikarmi in the light of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray reported in 2017 (3) SCC 436 .

3. Per contra, by referring to the pleadings as contained in paragraph 1.4, it is submitted by counsel for State that petitioner himself has pleaded

that "petitioner was reverted from permanent classification to Sthaikarmi". It is submitted that if that is so, then petitioner should have challenged the order of reversion and he cannot seek any relief unless and until order of reversal is set aside.

4. Heard counsel for parties.

5. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that pleadings in paragraph 1.4 to the effect that "the petitioner was reverted from permanent classification to Sthaikarmi" is erroneous. The petitioner was never reverted back and even his order of classification is intact.

6. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondents may be directed to decide the claim of the petitioner for payment of minimum of regular pay scale without increment from the order of classification till the conferral of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8082

3 WP-11368-2025 the status of Sthaikarmi.

7. If the petitioner was ever reverted back or the order of classification was ever modified or cancelled, then this direction shall automatically come to an end but if the order of classification is intact, then respondents shall pay the minimum of regular pay scale without increment from the order of classification till the conferral of status of Sthaikarmi as directed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra) .

8. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

9. With aforesaid observation, petition is finally disposed of.

(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE

AKS