Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jokhu Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52652
1 WP-37703-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 16th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 37703 of 2025
JOKHU SAHU AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Girish Kekre - G.A. 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 the nature of
Mandamus to direct the respondents to
pay minimum of pay scale Rs.5200-
20200 grade pay Rs.1900/- and pay scale
of Rs.4440 grade pay Rs. 1300/- since the
date of their classification in year 2011 &
their respective dates of classification
and also pay them arrears of salary from
the said date till the dated 07.10.2016
(P/2) with all consequential benefit
in reference of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs.
Ashwini Devi and others reported (2017)
3 SCC 436 : 2017 (153) FLR 609 in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52652
2 WP-37703-2025
interest of justice.
(ii) To grant any other relief which may
deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
2) The counsel appearing for the State has brought to the notice of
this Court an order dated 18.12.2024, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in Writ Petition No.39586 of 2024 (Chetan Lal Gupta and
others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others) 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 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) .
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52652
3 WP-37703-2025
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52652
4 WP-37703-2025
(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."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52652
5 WP-37703-2025
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.2 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.2/Engineer-in-Chief, WRD, Bhopal 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
also at liberty to examine the classification order of the petitioners and
also to examine that whether the order of classification 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) No order as to costs.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
PB
