Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Kumar Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 August, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39485
1 WP-2398-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 20th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 2398 of 2020
RAM KUMAR VERMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Aryaditya Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that the matter
relates to the modality of fixation of salary at appropriate stage in terms of
policy dated 07.10.2016 and the respondents have erroneously construed the
petitioner to be working as unskilled or semiskilled for various periods prior
to 07.10.2016 from which date he was found to be working as skilled
employee. He is entitled to get notional increments as per the pay scales
payable to skilled employees, but the said notional increments for past
service have been calculated in the matter of petitioner erroneously at lower
side by applying the pay scales payable to semi skilled and unskilled
employees.
2 . Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case is
squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P. No.6352/2022
decided on 01.10.2024.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39485
2 WP-2398-2020
3 . Learned Government Advocate for the State vehemently opposed
the petition, but could not point out to any distinguish feature from the
judgment passed in W.P. No.6352/2022, apart from stating that in the
present case there is undertaking of the petitioner on record.
4. This Court in W.P. No.6352/2022 has passed the following order:-
"By this petition, the petitioners have put to challenge the action of
the respondents in reducing the pay of the petitioners.
2. The petitioners before this Court are Sthayi Karmis regulated
as such in accordance with policy dated 07.10.2016 Annexure P-1
framed by the State Govt. for regulating the services of Daily
rated employees in the State Govt. Establishment under three
categories i.e, Unskilled, Semi-skilled and Skilled.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were
conferred the status of skilled employees/semi-skilled employees
in accordance with the State policy and Order Annexure P-2 dated
27.01.2017 was passed in the matter and Orders Annexure P-2
were passed in the matter of petitioners conferred them the status
of Semiskilled or Skilled employees. Their fixation was duly
made in the respective pay scale of Skilled or Semi-skilled
employees in the scale of Rs.5,000-100-8,000/- and Rs.4,500-90-
7,500/-.
4. The aforesaid fixation of the petitioners was later on modified
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39485
3 WP-2398-2020
by issuing the Orders Annexure P-3 and their salary was reduced.
It is dis-reduction made by Annexure P-3, that is under challenge
in the present petition.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State has justified the
reduction on the ground that the petitioners were engaged as daily
rated employees on some previous date much prior to the policy
dated 07.10.2016 and the previous services were to be reckoned
notionally for the purpose of fixation in accordance with the
policy dated 07.10.2016 in respective payscale. It so happened that
the petitioners were for some period of time during the period
prior to 07.10.2016 were unskilled employees and for unskilled
employees, a lower payscale and a lower increment is provided
and therefore, the period for which the petitioners were unskilled
employees, their notional fixation for that period was carried out
as per the payscale of unskilled employee and upon being
upgraded as Semiskilled or Skilled employee, their notional
fixation was carried out from the date they were placed
as Semiskilled or Skilled employees. The State has also referred to
the GAD Circular dated 23.11.2017 issued subsequently vide
Annexure A-2 alongwith affidavit dated 17.05.2024 and placed on
record as Annexure A-2 with the said Affidavit.
6. Heard.
7. The dispute revolves around the fixation of the petitioners. The
petitioners were undisputedly daily rated employees before
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39485
4 WP-2398-2020
regulating their services in accordance with the policy dated
07.10.2016, which is placed on record as Annexure P-1. This
policy dated 07.10.2016 provides for the following three payscales
for Unskilled, Semi-skilled and Skilled employees as under:-
S.No. Category Pay Scale (In Rupees)
1. Unskilled 4,000-80-7,000/-
2. Semi-skilled 4,500-90-7,500/-
3. Skilled 5,000-100-8,000/-
8 . The petitioners have been conferred the status of Semiskilled or
Skilled employees at the time of their placement as Sthayi Karmi in
accordance with the policy dated 07.10.2016. The aforesaid policy
contains the following provision in the matter of notional fixation for
the services rendered prior to 01.09.2016. The provision in clause 1.3
is as under:-
"1.3 व र ता का लाभ दे ने हे तु 01 िसत बर, 2016 क थित म उनके
ारा पूण कए वष के आधार पर संबंिधत वेतनमान म अं कत
वेतनवृ व दर से गणना का उ ह संबंिधत वेतनमान म वेतन िनधारण
कया जावेगा।"
9. It is evident from perusal of the aforesaid provision of clause 1.3
that for the purpose of seniority and fixation as on 01.09.2016, their
number of years of service completed in the concerned payscale more
particularly described in Hindi as "संबंिधत वेतनमान" with the
corresponding rate of increment shall be taken into consideration.
10. The petitioners as on 01.09.2016, were skilled or semi-skilled
employees and they have been conferred the status of Skilled
o r Semiskilled employees as on 01.09.2016. It is not disputed that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39485
5 WP-2398-2020
those petitioners who have been conferred the status of Skilled
employees were Semi-skilled or Unskilled employees for some periods
in their prior service career and those petitioners who have been
conferred the status of Semi-skilled employees were in their prior
service, for some period of time were unskilled employees. The
respondents initially carried out fixation in the matter that if an
employee who is conferred the status of skilled employee and has
completed 20 years of past service, then he would be granted notional
increment of Rs.100/- in the payscale of Skilled employee of Rs.5,000-
100-8,000/- and his fixation was carried out as 01.09.2016
accordingly.
11. By modifying the fixation, the respondents have now fixed the
same person in the manner that the same person was an unskilled
employee for 10 years in the past service of 20 years, then the period
of 10 years, his annual increment of Rs.80/- in the payscale of
Rs.4,000-80-7,000/- was granted notionally and when he was upgraded
as Skilled employee on daily rates in the past service then, his notional
fixation has been carried out for the said period of skilled service in the
payscale of Rs.5,000-100-8,000/-. Thus, by this change of
methodology for the past service, an employee who is conferred the
status of skilled employee as per the policy dated 07.10.2016, if his
past 20 years of service were as skilled employee, he gets the notional
increment in the skilled employee payscale of Rs.5,000-100-8,000/-
for that 20 years past service but, if out of his past service of 20 years,
if 10 years were as Unskilled employee, then for that period of ten
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39485
6 WP-2398-2020
years, he has been granted increment of Rs.80/- which is admissible to
a Unskilled worker and for the remaining period of 10 years, he has
been given increment of Rs.100/- which is the increment in the
payscale of Skilled employee.
12. The aforesaid methodology is contrary to clause 1.3 of the Scheme
dated 07.10.2016 which has been quoted above. As per clause 1.3 of
the Scheme dated 07.10.2016, the employee as on 01.09.2016 has to
be given the weightage of past service in the concerned payscale as per
the prescribed increment in the concerned pay scale. This concerned
payscale would mean the status which the employee was having as on
the date of conferring the benefits under Scheme dated 07.10.2016 i.e,
01.09.2016. Now, the respondents have adopted a different method of
reckoning the past service for benefits.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents had relied on a
clarification to the policy dated 07.10.2016 issued by the General
Administration Department dated 23.11.2017. It is vehemently
contended that the methodology now adopted is in terms with the
clarification issued by General Administration Department as per
the said Circular/Policy. The concerned provision of the Circular
dated 23.11.2017 is as under:-
"3- उपयु वसंगितपूण थित अ य वभाग म भी हो सकती है । य द
कोई दै िनक वेतन भोगी कमचार कुछ-कुछ अविध अकुशल म, अ कुशल म तथा
कुशल ण
े ी म रहता है तब उसके ारा जस ण
े ी म जतनी सेवा अविध पूण क
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39485
7 WP-2398-2020
गई है उतनी अविध के िलए उसी वेतनमान म वेतनवृ क पा ता होगी, जसे
िन नां कत उदाहरण से समझा जा सकता है :-
1 िनयु ितिथ 01/09/1996 से 01/09/2006 तक 10 वष X 80 = 800
(अकुशल ण े ी म वेतनमान 4000-80-7000)
01/09/1996 को यूनतम वेतन - 4000
10 वष क वेतन वृ - 800
2 िनयु ितिथ 01/09/2006 से 01/09/2016 4860 (4800 क आगामी टे ज)
(अ कुशल ण े ी म वेतनमान 4500-90-7500)
01/09/2006 को यूनतम वेतन - 4860
10 वष क वेतन वृ - 900
5760
3 कुशल ण े ी क थित म द, 01/09/2016 को
800 (5760 क आगामी टे ज)
(कुशल ण े ी म वेतनमान 5000-100-8000)
01/09/2016 को दे य वेतन - 5800
वीकृ त वेतन वृ दनांक 01/09/2017 - 5900/- वेतन दे य होगा।
(सी0 बी0 पड़वार)
उप सिचव
म य दे श शासन
सामा य शासन वभाग"
The subsequent clarification dated 23.11.2017 runs counter to the
provision of clause 1.3 of the initial policy dated 07.10.2016.
14. It seems that the initial policy dated 07.10.2016 was issued
in the name of and by Order of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh.
Therefore, it can be said to be a valid executive Order in terms of
Article 162 of the Constitution of India as per which the executive
power of a State shall extend to the matters in respect to which the
legislature of the State has power to make laws. The initial policy
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39485
8 WP-2398-2020
dated 07.10.2016 was issued by Order and in the name of
Governor and therefore, it was an executive Order having
enforceable affect in terms of Article 162 readwith 166(1) of the
Constitution of India. However, the subsequent clarification has
not been issued in the name of and by Orders of Governor and
therefore, it cannot be said to be an Order having statutory force in
terms of Article 166(1) of the Constitution of India because it has
not been issued by name of and under Orders of the same
authority i.e, the Governor.
15. It is settled that the Governor functions through the Council of
Ministers as per the Rules of Business for Executive Government
framed in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. The
Order expressed in the name of Governor would have had
authenticity of the State Govt. as per Article 166(1) and as per the
Rules of Business for Executive Government of the State in terms
of Article 166 (3) of the Constitution. The clarification dated
23.11.2017 not having been issued by Orders of and in the name
of Governor makes it clear that it is approved by some authority
subordinate or lower in rank to the authority which approved the
initial Policy dated 07.10.2016. It not having been expressed in the
name of Governor in terms of Article 166(1), cannot have binding
effect in terms of Article 162.
16. While issuing any clarification providing a different manner of
reckoning of increment of past service in terms of the Policy dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39485
9 WP-2398-2020
07.10.2016, it was to be ensured that the State clarification is
issued by or under approval of the same authority which had
approved the issuance of Policy dated 07.10.2016. The
clarification dated 23.11.2017 not having been issued by Orders of
and in the name of Governor, it cannot be said to be valid
clarification or modification or explanation which could deviate
from a scheme framed by or under Orders of the Governor.
17. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the
clarification dated 23.11.2017 is merely an executive instruction
which cannot override the provisions of Policy dated 07.10.2016
which was issued by Orders of and in the name of Governor and
was having binding force in terms of Article 162 readwith 166(1)
of the Constitution. Resultantly, the petition deserves to be and is
hereby allowed.
18. The initial fixation of the petitioners carried out by Order
Annexure P-2 is maintained. If any amount is due to be paid to the
petitioners, it be paid to the petitioners within a period of three
months from the date of production of certified copy of this
Order."
5. So far as the contention of learned Government Advocate for the State
that there is undertaking on the part of the petitioner is concerned, the said
undertaking is utterly insignificant and irrelevant for the simple reason that
the petitioner has not challenged the recovery, but has challenged the
substantive action of the respondents in making improper fixation. Once
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39485
10 WP-2398-2020
there is challenge to substantive fixation of the petitioner, which is stated to
be at lower side, then the undertaking will not come to rescue of the State
and it could have come to rescue of the respondents only if the petitioner was
impugning only recovery part and not the substantive part of refixation.
6. Therefore, the present petition is allowed in similar terms as W.P.
No.6352/2022. The said order will apply mutatis mutandis to the case of the
present petitioner also.
7 . Let the necessary fixation and calculation be carried out and benefits
released to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of
production of copy of this order.
8. Petitions are allowed in above terms.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
RS
