Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Lal Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 October, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51402
1 WP-39143-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 10th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 39143 of 2025
RAM LAL MISHRA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Madan Lal Soni - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Girish Kekre - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-
"i. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a
writ in nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to
pay minimum of payscale Rs.5200-20200, gradepay
Rs.1900/- since the date of their classification i.e.
16.08.2011 and also pay them arrears of salary from the
said date till the dt.07.10.2016 with all consequential
benefit in reference of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini
Devi and others reported in (2017) 3 SCC 436 : 2017
(153) FLR 609 in the interest of justice.
ii. To grant any other relief which may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
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 it is submitted 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51402
2 WP-39143-2025
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 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 so 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, is concerned, the petitioners 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. Although, certain orders have been passed by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51402
3 WP-39143-2025
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, the petition is disposed of 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 the date of receipt of such representations. The authorities are at
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51402
4 WP-39143-2025
liberty to examine that the order dated 16.08.2011 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. No order as to costs.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
vc
