Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramnath Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 July, 2025
1 WP-17792-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 3 rd OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 14822 of 2020
ANIRUDDHA PRASAD SHUKLA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Mohan Sausarkar - Government Advocate for the Respondent/State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 14911 of 2020
MOHAN LAL SONDHIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Mohan Sausarkar - Government Advocate for the Respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 15743 of 2020
RAMASHRAY KUSHWAHA
Versus
THE STATA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Mohan Sausarkar - Government Advocate for the Respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 17792 of 2020
RAMNATH VERMA
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 04-07-2025
15:03:52
2 WP-17792-2020
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Mohan Sausarkar - Government Advocate for the Respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 17800 of 2020
RAJENDRA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Mohan Sausarkar - Government Advocate for the Respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 1762 of 2021
BABBU SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Mohan Sausarkar - Government Advocate for the Respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 1764 of 2021
RAJESH KUMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Mohan Sausarkar - Government Advocate for the Respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 1959 of 2021
UMESH PRASAD SONDHIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 04-07-2025
15:03:52
3 WP-17792-2020
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Mohan Sausarkar - Government Advocate for the Respondent/State.
ORDER
All these petitions are filed seeking similar reliefs and are based on
identical facts, therefore, they are being decided by this common order.
Reference to facts and documents is taken from Writ Petition No.14563 of
2020.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submits that though
the petitioners have also prayed for setting aside Clause 1.5 of the policy
dated 07.10.2016 but looking to the law settled by this Court and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in various cases, they are giving up relief in the matter of
challenge to Clause 1.5 of circular dated 07.10.2016. However, they are
pressing these petitions for other reliefs claimed in these petitions.
3.The petitioners were initially engaged as daily wages employees on
various dates in the Water Resources Department and after being considered
under policy dated 07.10.2016, these petitioners have been granted the
benefits of sthayee karmi policy (skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled) and are
getting the payscale as per the policy dated 07.10.2016 and there is no
dispute to that fact, nor any interference is sought in that matter.
4. The grievance of the petitioners is that after working as daily rated
employees for a long time, the petitioners were classified by the respondents
by various orders issued prior to 07.10.2016 and since the petitioners were
classified employees before 07.10.2016 itself, therefore, the petitioners are
entitled to get minimum of the regular payscale with dearness allowance but
4 WP-17792-2020
without increment in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray and others reported
in 2017 (3) SCC 436.
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that if the
petitioners approach the competent authorities raising their grievance in
detail by pointing out the classification order issued prior to 07.10.2016 then
the authority shall dwell upon the claims of the petitioners in accordance
with law.
6. Considering the rival submissions, these petitions are disposed off
directing the petitioners to submit a detailed representations before the
respondents pointing out the classification order issued prior to 07.10.2016.
In the event of existence of such classification order, the respondents shall
consider the cases of the petitioners in accordance with the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra) and if the
petitioners are found to be classified employees, then shall grant a minimum
of the payscale without increment in accordance with the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra) till
07.10.2016 from which date the petitioners have already been granted the
status of sthayee karmi.
7. Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of two
months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
8. Accordingly, these petitions stand disposed off.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
5 WP-17792-2020
veni
