Madhya Pradesh High Court
Parasram Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 October, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51172
1 WP-38470-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 9 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 38470 of 2025
PARASRAM DUBEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shiv Kumar Dubey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Deepak Sahu - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-
"i. To call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the
petitioner.
ii. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
Respondents authorities to pay to the petitioner the benefit of
minimum pay scale from the due date of classification done in the
department in permanent category in view of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex court in case of Ramnaresh Rawat as well as
identical order passed by this Hon'ble Court (Annexure P-2 & P-
3)and other consequential benefits etc. along with interest @ 12
%per annum.
iii. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper
may also be given to the petitioner, in the interest of Justice."
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51172
2 WP-38470-2025
Pradesh and others in Writ Petition No.39586 of 2024 and submits that the
relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be extended to him in view of the
aforesaid order. The petitioner has already been extended the benefit of the
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 petitioner has chosen to get the benefit of the
policy dated 07.10.2016. Under these circumstances, the pay scale for which
he has been extended the benefit of policy dated 07.10.2016 is to be extended
to the petitioner. The petitioner 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 petitioner 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 him, he is 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51172
3 WP-38470-2025
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. 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 petitioner to file representation to the respondent No.2
regarding his claim with respect to arrears of classified employee within a
period of 10 days from today and in case such representation is filed, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51172
4 WP-38470-2025
respondent No.2 is directed to dwell upon the same and pass a self contained
speaking order in accordance with law and communicate the outcome to the
petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of such
representation. The authorities are at liberty to examine the order of
classification of the petitioner. They are also at liberty to examine that
whether this order is still intact or not. If the petitioner is found entitled for
the benefits as claimed by him, the aforesaid benefits be also extended to him
within the aforesaid period.
5. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed off. No order as to costs.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
sp
