Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kanhu Goutam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51730
1 WP-40348-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 13th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 40348 of 2025
KANHU GOUTAM AND ANOTHER
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devendra Kumar Kushwaha - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Darshan Soni - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-
"(i). That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order, or direction, directing the Respondent-Authorities
to forthwith grant the Petitioners the benefit of
minimum pay scale along with admissible dearness
allowance and arrears in terms of the Circular dated
21.04.2023 and the binding judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ramnaresh Rawat.
(ii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct
the Respondent-Authorities to release the arrears of pay
and allowances along with interest at 8% per annum
from the date of entitlement till actual payment.
(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems
just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case may be also kindly granted to the petitioners."
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:51730
2 WP-40348-2025
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51730
3 WP-40348-2025
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
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.4 regarding their claims with respect to
arrears of classified employees within a period of 10 days from today and in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51730
4 WP-40348-2025
case such representations are filed, the respondent No.4 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
liberty to examine the classification order of the petitioners. 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.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
vc
