Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramavtar Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 October, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54444
1 WP-41284-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 30th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 41284 of 2025
RAMAVTAR KUSHWAHA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sampat Kumar Kushwaha - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Girish Kekre - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-
"(i) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus and directed the respondents to extend the
benefit of minimum of the pay scale to the petitioners
against which post they are working with all service
benefits including arrears within stipulated period.
(ii) This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass any
such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
under the 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54444
2 WP-41284-2025
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 - (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 Co-ordinate 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54444
3 WP-41284-2025
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 (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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54444
4 WP-41284-2025
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 stands 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 working days from
today and in case such representations are filed, the respondent
No.2/Engineer-in-Chief, PWD, Bhopal is directed to dwell upon the same
and pass a self contained speaking order in accordance with law and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54444
5 WP-41284-2025
communicate the outcome to the petitioners within a period of 90 days from
the date of receipt of such representations.
5) 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.
No order as to costs.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
vc+
