Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Kumar Chaturvedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51997
1 WP-16833-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 14th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 16833 of 2020
ASHOK KUMAR CHATURVEDI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bhole Nath Sharma - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Aryaditya Singh - Government Advocate for the Respondents
No.1-4.
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submits that the matter
relates to the modality of fixation of salary at appropriate stage in terms of
policy dated 07.10.2016 and the respondents have erroneously construed the
petitioners to be working as unskilled or semiskilled for various periods prior
to 07.10.2016, though on that date he was found to be working as skilled
employees. They are entitled to get notional increments as per the pay scales
payable to skilled employees, but the said notional increments for past
service have been calculated in the matter of petitioners erroneously at lower
side by applying the pay scales payable to semi skilled and unskilled
employees.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the case is
squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P. No.6352/2022
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51997
2 WP-16833-2020
decided on 01.10.2024.
3 . Learned Government Advocate for the State vehemently opposed
the petition, but could not point out to any distinguish feature from the
judgment passed in W.P. No.6352/2022, apart from stating that in the
present case there is undertaking of the petitioner on record.
4. This Court in W.P. No.6352/2022 has passed the following order:-
"By this petition, the petitioners have put to challenge the
action of the respondents in reducing the pay of the petitioners.
2. The petitioners before this Court are Sthayi Karmis
regulated as such in accordance with policy dated 07.10.2016
Annexure P-1 framed by the State Govt. for regulating the
services of Daily rated employees in the State Govt. Establishment
under three categories i.e, Unskilled, Semi-skilled and Skilled.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were
conferred the status of skilled employees/semi-skilled employees
in accordance with the State policy and Order Annexure P-2 dated
27.01.2017 was passed in the matter and Orders Annexure P-2
were passed in the matter of petitioners conferred them the status
of Semiskilled or Skilled employees. Their fixation was duly
made in the respective pay scale of Skilled or Semi-skilled
employees in the scale of Rs.5,000-100-8,000/- and Rs.4,500-90-
7,500/-.
4. The aforesaid fixation of the petitioners was later on
modified by issuing the Orders Annexure P-3 and their salary was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51997
3 WP-16833-2020
reduced. It is dis-reduction made by Annexure P-3, that is under
challenge in the present petition.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State has justified
the reduction on the ground that the petitioners were engaged as
daily rated employees on some previous date much prior to the
policy dated 07.10.2016 and the previous services were to be
reckoned notionally for the purpose of fixation in accordance with
the policy dated 07.10.2016 in respective payscale. It so happened
that the petitioners were for some period of time during the period
prior to 07.10.2016 were unskilled employees and for unskilled
employees, a lower payscale and a lower increment is provided
and therefore, the period for which the petitioners were unskilled
employees, their notional fixation for that period was carried out
as per the payscale of unskilled employee and upon being
upgraded as Semiskilled or Skilled employee, their notional
fixation was carried out from the date they were placed as
Semiskilled or Skilled employees. The State has also referred to
the GAD Circular dated 23.11.2017 issued subsequently vide
Annexure A-2 alongwith affidavit dated 17.05.2024 and placed on
record as Annexure A-2 with the said Affidavit.
6. Heard.
7. The dispute revolves around the fixation of the
petitioners. The petitioners were undisputedly daily rated
employees before regulating their services in accordance with the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51997
4 WP-16833-2020
policy dated 07.10.2016, which is placed on record as Annexure
P-1. This policy dated 07.10.2016 provides for the following three
payscales for Unskilled, Semi-skilled and Skilled employees as
under:-
S.No. Category Pay Scale (In Rupees)
1. Unskilled 4,000-80-7,000/-
2. Semi-skilled 4,500-90-7,500/-
3. Skilled 5,000-100-8,000/-
8. The petitioners have been conferred the status of Semiskilled or
Skilled employees at the time of their placement as Sthayi Karmi
in accordance with the policy dated 07.10.2016. The aforesaid
policy contains the following provision in the matter of notional
fixation for the services rendered prior to 01.09.2016. The
provision in clause 1.3 is as under:-
"व र ता का लाभ दे ने हे तु 01 िसत बर , 2016 क
थित म उनके ारा पूण कए वष के आधार पर
संबिधत वेतनमान म अं कत वेतनवृ व दर से गणना
का उ ह संबिधत वेतनमान म वेतन िनधारण कया
जावेगा◌़।"
9. It is evident from perusal of the aforesaid provision of
clause 1.3 that for the purpose of seniority and fixation as on
01.09.2016, their number of years of service completed in the
concerned payscale more particularly described in Hindi as
"संबिधत वेतनमान" with the corresponding rate of increment
shall be taken into consideration.
10. The petitioners as on 01.09.2016, were skilled or semi-
skilled employees and they have been conferred the status of
Skilled or Semiskilled employees as on 01.09.2016. It is not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51997
5 WP-16833-2020
disputed that those petitioners who have been conferred the status
of Skilled employees were Semi-skilled or Unskilled employees
for some periods in their prior service career and those petitioners
who have been conferred the status of Semi-skilled employees
were in their prior service, for some period of time were unskilled
employees. The respondents initially carried out fixation in the
matter that if an employee who is conferred the status of skilled
employee and has completed 20 years of past service, then he
would be granted notional increment of Rs.100/- in the payscale
of Skilled employee of Rs.5,000-100-8,000/- and his fixation was
carried out as 01.09.2016 accordingly.
11. By modifying the fixation, the respondents have now
fixed the same person in the manner that the same person was an
unskilled employee for 10 years in the past service of 20 years,
then the period of 10 years, his annual increment of Rs.80/- in the
payscale of Rs.4,000-80-7,000/- was granted notionally and when
he was upgraded as Skilled employee on daily rates in the past
service then, his notional fixation has been carried out for the said
period of skilled service in the payscale of Rs.5,000-100-8,000/-.
Thus, by this change of methodology for the past service, an
employee who is conferred the status of skilled employee as per
the policy dated 07.10.2016, if his past 20 years of service were as
skilled employee, he gets the notional increment in the skilled
employee payscale of Rs.5,000-100-8,000/- for that 20 years past
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51997
6 WP-16833-2020
service but, if out of his past service of 20 years, if 10 years were
as Unskilled employee, then for that period of ten years, he has
been granted increment of Rs.80/- which is admissible to a
Unskilled worker and for the remaining period of 10 years, he has
been given increment of Rs.100/- which is the increment in the
payscale of Skilled employee.
12. The aforesaid methodology is contrary to clause 1.3 of
the Scheme dated 07.10.2016 which has been quoted above. As
per clause 1.3 of the Scheme dated 07.10.2016, the employee as
on 01.09.2016 has to be given the weightage of past service in the
concerned payscale as per the prescribed increment in the
concerned pay scale. This concerned payscale would mean the
status which the employee was having as on the date of conferring
the benefits under Scheme dated 07.10.2016 i.e, 01.09.2016. Now,
the respondents have adopted a different method of reckoning the
past service for benefits.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents had relied on a
clarification to the policy dated 07.10.2016 issued by the General
Administration Department dated 23.11.2017. It is vehemently
contended that the methodology now adopted is in terms with the
clarification issued by General Administration Department as per
the said Circular/Policy. The concerned provision of the Circular
dated 23.11.2017 is as under:-
"3- उपयु वसंगितपूण थित अ य वभाग म भी हो सकती है ।
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51997
7 WP-16833-2020
य द कोई दै िनक वेतन भोगी कमचार कुछ-कुछ अविध अकुशल
म, अ कुशल म तथा कुशल ण
े ी म रहता है तब उसके ारा जस
ण
े ी म जतनी सेवा अविध पूण क गई है उतनी अविध के िलए
उसी वेतनमान म वेतनवृ क पा ता होगी, जसे िन नां कत
उदाहरण से समझा जा सकता है :-
1. िनयु ितिथ 01/09/1996 से 01/09/2006 तक 10 वष X 80 = 800
अकुशल ण
े ी म वेतनमान 4000-80-7000)
01/09/1996 को यूनतम वेतन - 4000
2. िनयु ितिथ 01/09/2006 से 01/09/2016 4860 (4800 क आगामी
टे ज) (अ कुशल ण
े ी म वेतनमान 4500-90-7500)
01/09/2006 को यूनतम वेतन - 4860
5760
3. कुशल ण
े ी क थित म द , 01/09/2016 को 800 (5760 क आगामी
टे ज)
(कुशल ण
े ी म वेतनमान 5000-100-8000)
01/09/2016 को दे य वेतन - 5800
वीकृ त वेतन वृ दनांक 01/09/2017-5900/- वेतन दे य होगा।
(सी० बी० पड़वार)
उप सिचव
म य दे श शासन
सामा य शासन वभाग
The subsequent clarification dated 23.11.2017 runs counter to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51997
8 WP-16833-2020
the provision of clause 1.3 of the initial policy dated 07.10.2016.
14. It seems that the initial policy dated 07.10.2016 was
issued in the name of and by Order of the Governor of Madhya
Pradesh. Therefore, it can be said to be a valid executive Order in
terms of Article 162 of the Constitution of India as per which the
executive power of a State shall extend to the matters in respect to
which the legislature of the State has power to make laws. The
initial policy dated 07.10.2016 was issued by Order and in the
name of Governor and therefore, it was an executive Order having
enforceable affect in terms of Article 162 readwith 166(1) of the
Constitution of India. However, the subsequent clarification has
not been issued in the name of and by Orders of Governor and
therefore, it cannot be said to be an Order having statutory force in
terms of Article 166(1) of the Constitution of India because it has
not been issued by name of and under Orders of the same
authority i.e, the Governor.
15. It is settled that the Governor functions through the
Council of Ministers as per the Rules of Business for Executive
Government framed in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of
India. The Order expressed in the name of Governor would have
had authenticity of the State Govt. as per Article 166(1) and as per
the Rules of Business for Executive Government of the State in
terms of Article 166 (3) of the Constitution. The clarification dated
23.11.2017 not having been issued by Orders of and in the name
of Governor makes it clear that it is approved by some authority
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51997
9 WP-16833-2020
subordinate or lower in rank to the authority which approved the
initial Policy dated 07.10.2016. It not having been expressed in the
name of Governor in terms of Article 166(1), cannot have binding
effect in terms of Article 162.
16. While issuing any clarification providing a different
manner of reckoning of increment of past service in terms of the
Policy dated 07.10.2016, it was to be ensured that the State
clarification is issued by or under approval of the same authority
which had approved the issuance of Policy dated 07.10.2016. The
clarification dated 23.11.2017 not having been issued by Orders of
and in the name of Governor, it cannot be said to be valid
clarification or modification or explanation which could deviate
from a scheme framed by or under Orders of the Governor.
17. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that
the clarification dated 23.11.2017 is merely an executive
instruction which cannot override the provisions of Policy dated
07.10.2016 which was issued by Orders of and in the name of
Governor and was having binding force in terms of Article 162
readwith 166(1) of the Constitution. Resultantly, the petition
deserves to be and is hereby allowed.
18. The initial fixation of the petitioners carried out by
Order Annexure P2 is maintained. If any amount is due to be paid
to the petitioners, it be paid to the petitioners within a period of
three months from the date of production of certified copy of this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51997
10 WP-16833-2020
Order."
5. Learned Government Advocate for the State has though vehemently
opposed the petition but is not in a position to point out any distinguishable
features from the aforesaid judgment.
6. Therefore, the present petition is allowed in similar terms as W.P.
No.6352/2022. The said order will apply mutatis mutandis to the case of the
present petitioners also.
7. Let the necessary fixation and calculation be carried out and benefits
released to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of
production of copy of this order.
8. The Petition is allowed in above terms.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni
