Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nokhelal Maravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 May, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23308
1 WP-13802-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 14th OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 13802 of 2025
NOKHELAL MARAVI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Prabhanshu Shukla - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs -
(i) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the
entire service records in the interest of justice.
(ii) To issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent
no.3 to pay minimum of pay scale Rs. 5200-20200 grade pay
Rs. 1900/- since the date when petitioners were classified as
permanent employees i.e. 09.08.2011 and also pay the arrears
of salary from the said date along with all the consequential
benefits in the light of (Annexure P/4 and P/5), in the interest
of justice.
(iii) To issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to
consider and decide the representation (Annexure P/10) in
accordance with law.
(iv) To issue any other relief deems fit may also be granted
including cost of litigation.
2. Counsel appearing for the State has brought to the notice of this Court
an order dated 18.12.2024, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of Chetan Lal Gupta and others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
and others in Writ Petition No.39586 of 2024 and submits that the relief
claimed by the petitioners cannot be extended to them in view of the
aforesaid order. The petitioners have already been extended the benefit of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23308
2 WP-13802-2025
policy dated 07.10.2016 introduced by the State Government wherein three
categories have been formulated and respective pay scales have been granted
against those categories. The petitioners have chosen to get the benefit of the
policy dated 07.10.2016. Under these circumstances, the pay scale for which
they have been extended the benefit of policy dated 07.10.2016 is to be
extended to the petitioners. The petitioners cannot claim the benefit of
minimum pay scale in view of the law laid down in the case of Ram Naresh
Rawat vs. Ashwini Devi and others reported in (2017) 3 SCC 436 after
extension of benefits of policy dated 07.10.2016, but as far as claim of the
petitioners with respect to grant of arrears from the date of classification till
the date when the benefit of policy dated 07.10.2016 was extended to them,
they are duly entitled in view of judgment passed in the case of Ram Naresh
Rawat (supra).
3. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chetan Lal Gupta
(supra) has considered the aforesaid proposition and has held as under:-
". . . Although the government has issued a policy dated
07.10.2016 in which those daily wagers have been considered
for classification as permanent employees and categorised in
different categories as skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled, and
different pay-scales have been provided to them in their
respective categories. The scheme was formulated by the
government for daily wagers, who for some reason could not
be regularised pursuant to the direction issued by the Supreme
Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v.
Uma Devi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1 and therefore to grant
them benefit, the scheme was introduced. Although, it appears
that the petitioners from the date of categorisation on their
respective categories, considering their nature of work became
entitled to get the minimum of the pay-scale of the post on
which they were performing the duties alike those classified as
permanent employees but this misconception has no standing.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23308
3 WP-13802-2025
Although, certain orders have been passed by the coordinate
bench directing to grant the employees the benefit of
minimum of scale relying upon the law laid down by the High
Court in the case of Chandra Bhushan Prasad Dwivedi v. The
State of Madhya Pradesh passed in W.P.No.12210/2017 on
17.08.2017 and also relying upon the case of Ram Naresh
Rawat (supra). Indeed, what were the documents available
before the court, are not known to this court but with the
available documents, it is clear that the petitioners have been
classified as permanent employees under the Scheme dated
07.10.2016 and as such they became entitled to get pay-scale
of respective categories under which they have been classified
but earlier order dated 20.06.2011 does not provide them any
entitlement to claim arrears of minimum of scale. Even in the
case of Chandra Bhushan Prasad Dwivedi (supra) and also in
the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra), it is clear that the
employees were classified as permanent employees and
therefore the benefit was granted to them to get the minimum
of the scale. The categorisation of the employees under the
specific category is only for the purpose to claim wages
prevailing at the relevant point of time of the said category, but
not the scale of the post on which they were working. Ergo, in
the considered opinion of this court, this petition is
misconceived and the claim raised by the petitioners is not
sustainable. Albeit, it is clarified that the petitioners will be
entitled to get the benefit of scheme dated 07.10.2016 and the
order dated 31.12.2016 (Annexure-P/2) and they can also be
granted the benefit of VII Pay Commission, for which, they
can raise their claim before the authority and if that is so done,
the authority shall consider and pass an order as per their
entitlement.
Petition stands disposed of."
4. Under these circumstances, this petition is disposed off with a direction
to the petitioners to file individual separate comprehensive representations to
the respondent No.3 regarding their claims with respect to arrears of
classified employees within a period of 10 days from today and in case such
representations are filed, the respondent No.3 is directed to dwell upon the
same and pass a self contained speaking order in accordance with law and
communicate the outcome to the petitioners within a period of 90 days from
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23308
4 WP-13802-2025
the date of receipt of such representations. The authorities are at liberty to
examine that the order dated 20.06.2011 is the classification order of the
petitioners or something else. They are also at liberty to examine that
whether this order is still intact or not. If the petitioners are found entitled for
the benefits as claimed by them, the aforesaid benefits be also extended to
them within the aforesaid period.
5. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed off. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
VV
