Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh Kumar Ojha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 July, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14353
1 WP-14438-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 11th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 14438 of 2020
MAHESH KUMAR OJHA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bhanu Prakash Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri G K Agarwal - GA for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had
been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
(i) That, respondents may kindly be directed to extend the benefit
of regular pay scale under recommendation of 7th Pay
Commission w.e.f. 1.1.2016 and they may further be directed to
fix the salary of petitioner in respective pay bands with arrears
thereof.
(ii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper may also be given to the petitioner along with costs.
2. The facts essential for adjudication of the present Petition are as
follows:
The Petitioner was appointed in the year 1983 on the post of Typist in
Harsi Division of Water Resources Department as a daily wage employee.
The petitioner being a member of Karyabharit Evam Dainik Vetanbhogi
Karmchari Sangh, Gwalior Evam Chambal Sambhag, a registered trade
union, filed M.P. no. 1050 of 1986 alongwith 50 other daily wages
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14353
2 WP-14438-2020
employees for payment of regular pay scale of the post which got dismissed
but in appeal, the Division bench allowed the petition vide order dated
19.04.1990, relevant extract of which is reproduced below for convenience
and ready reference:-
"Accordingly, we direct respondents to pay salaries tothe
petitioner No. 2 to 52 according to current scales of pay the
minimum in the scale applicable to the respective posts, in which
they are working, though they are now paid at daily wages rate.
They shall be entitled to be paid dearness allowances as well, in
addition to the minimum salary, which shall be paid to them under
the respective pay scale."
The respondents thereupon challenged the said order by filing SLP No.
12625/90 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
dismissed the SLP of the department vide order dated 19.04.1995. Only
thereafter in compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this
Court, the Ministry of Water Resources Department issued an order dated
16.07.1996 and subsequently respondent No. 4 passed an official order
no.3345 dated 11.12.1997 and granted the minimum regular pay scale of Rs.
950/- of the Assistant Grade-3 alongwith dearness allowance which was the
minimum of the then pay scale of Assistant Grade-3 under recommendation
of 4th pay commission. The pay scale of petitioner was subsequently revised
under recommendation of 5" pay commission and he was paid the minimum
of pay scale of Rs.3050/- of the post of Assistant Grade-3 but the same was
not revised w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted
representation for revising his pay scale and also to regularize his services.
The respondent no.4 denied the claim of the petitioner for revised pay scale
under the recommendation of 6th pay commission vide order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14353
3 WP-14438-2020
26.09.2017. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing writ
petition no.17475/2018 before this Court and this Court allowed the petition
of petitioner vide order dated 25.9.2019. After order of this Court, though the
respondents have extended the benefit of revised pay scale recommended by
the 6th Pay Commission after 3 month period granted by this Court, but the
interest as per order of this Court has yet not been paid to him.
Some similarly situated employees of the same Harsi Division, Dilip
Singh Patel and 11 others filed a writ petition before this Court,which was
allowed and on filing SLP by the respondents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case titled as State of M.P. V/s DilipSingh Patel & 11 others (2017) 3
SCC 455 has held that:-
"In such case, if the pay scale is revised from time to time
including the pay scale as revised pursuant to the Sixth Pay
Commission, the respondents shall be entitled to minimum wages
and allowances as per said revised scale without increment".
In compliance of aforesaid order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
respondents gave the benefit of revised pay scale to the Dilip Singh Patel &
11 others and also to the other similarly situated employees of the
department. State Government accepted the recommendation of 7th Pay
Commission and benefit of the revision of pay scale has been granted to the
employees w.e.f. 01.01.2016 in pursuance of the Madhya Pradesh Revision
of Pay Rules 2017. In reference to revision of Pay Rules, the petitioners had
served notice-cum representation dated 28.06.2020 on the respondents with a
request to extend the benefit of revision of pay rules recommended under
7th Pay Commission. The issue involved in the present case stands resolved
by this Court in the earlier round of litigation vide order dated 14.02.2012
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14353
4 WP-14438-2020
which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip
Singh Patel &11 others. Thus, the action of the respondents in not
considering the application of petitioner for extending the benefit of regular
pay scale under recommendation of 7th Pay Commission is prima facie
illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. Hence, aggrieved by the non-action of
the respodents in not revising the pay scale of the petitioner, the present
petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner is also
performing the same duty like a regular employee and, therefore, the said
action of the respondents amounts to discrimination.
4. The respondents have filed their reply and had submitted that the
petitioner is a daily wage employee and, therefore, the M.P. Pay Revision
Rules, 2017 by which the pay scale of regular employees of State
Government was revised, are not applicable to the petitioner as he is not a
regular employee of the State Government. Rule 1(B) (i) (vii) of the Rules of
2017 makes it clear that the same are not applicable on the petitioner and,
therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of pay revision.
It is further stated that the benefit of minimum pay scale as per the pay
scale of 6th Pay Commission has been given to the petitioner in compliance
of the order passed by this Court, which cannot be extended for grant of
benefit of revision of pay scale on the basis of recommendation of 7th Pay
Commission. The petitioner since is not a regular employee of the State
Government nor he is appointed against any vacant post following the due
process of recruitment and, thus, he is not entitled for revision of pay scale as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14353
5 WP-14438-2020
no such pay scale is applicable to him. In the light of the aforesaid, learned
counsel for the respondents submits that the petition deserves to be
dismissed.
5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. In the present case, the petitioner is a daily wage employee of Harsi
Division of Water Resources Department and he is getting minimum of the
pay scale. The petitioner was not granted the benefit of 6th Pay Commission
as has been granted to the State Government employees, therefore, writ
petition was filed by him which was allowed and the respondents were
directed to grant the benefit of Pay Scale on the recommendation of 6th Pay
Commission to the petitioner. Thereafter, the State Government has made
applicable the recommendation of 7th Pay Commission to its employees.
However, the said benefit has not been extended to the petitioners, therefore,
the present writ petition has been filed.
7. The respondents in their reply has stated that the Rules of 2017 are
not applicable to the petitioners as he is not the regular employee of the State
Government. The same arguments were raised by the petitioners in the
judgment dated 03.07.2022 passed in W.P. No. 5332/2010 (Kishorilal
Prajapati & Ors Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) passed by this Court, which was
maintained upto the Supreme Court.
In Para- 6 and 7 of the said judgment, this Court has held as under :-
6. The principle of classification of an employee on a post, as is
envisaged in the Industrial Law is very simple. If an employee is
said to have remained working in one calender year for 240 days
or more on one post, he is said to be entitled for classification on
the said post. If the persons like petitioners are continuing, it is
very clear that the work is available. If the work is available and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14353
6 WP-14438-2020
the posts are already sanctioned, the petitioners are said to be
classified on the said post on account of their continuous long
working for 20 or more years. Thus, the stand taken by the
respondents that the petitioners would not be entitled to minimum
of the pay scale of the post against which they are working, cannot
be accepted. The factual aspect is distinguishable than that of the
facts in the case of M.P Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (supra). The very
same principle would not be attracted in the present case.
7. If the persons like petitioners were granted the benefit of
minimum of the pay scale with the allowances, applicable on the
post on which they are working, how could it be said that they will
not be entitled to the revision of the pay scale if the pay of the said
post is revised by the State Government accepting the
recommendation of the Sixth Pay Commission. The order of the
Tribunal is clear. It nowhere says that the persons like petitioners
would be entitled to only minimum of the pay scale as is prevalent
on the date and they will never get benefit of revision of the pay
scale. The only rider put by the Tribunal is that the petitioners
would not get the increments of pay. This being so, the
respondents are bound to extend the benefit of revision of the pay,
applicable to the post on which the petitioners are working.
Consequently, the petitioners will get the benefit of minimum of
the revised pay scale and allowances of the posts against which
they are working, as has been accepted by the State Government
on the basis of recommendation of the Sixth Pay Commission.
The same would be applicable to the persons like petitioners from
the date the revision of pay scale has been done. The admissible
amount is to be calculated and is to be paid to the petitioners."
8. In the present case also the petitioner is working for more than 20
years and he is continuing on his post which shows that the work is available
and the posts are already sanctioned. The petitioner is performing his work as
that of regular employee and, therefore, the same analogy which has been
made applicable by this Court in the case of Kishorilal Prajapati(supra)
would be applicable in the present case also. Thus, the action of the
respondents in not extending the benefit of 7th Pay Commission to the
petitioner appears to be per se illegal and discriminatory.
9. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are
directed to grant the benefit of revision of pay scale on the recommendation
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14353
7 WP-14438-2020
of 7th Pay Commission to the petitioner and the respondents are further
directed to pay arrears of salary with interest @ 6% per annum to the
petitioner within a period of three months from the date of certified copy of
the order passed today.
10. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
