Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krishna Pal Singh Solanki vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 October, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50846
1 WP-37602-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 8 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 37602 of 2025
KRISHNA PAL SINGH SOLANKI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sampat Kumar Kushwaha - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Darshan Soni - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is permitted to
correct the descriptions of petitioner No.12 in the cause title.
2. Prayer is allowed.
3. Let necessary amendment in the cause title be carried out during course
of the day, for which, no formal application would be required.
4. 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."
5. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50846
2 WP-37602-2025
of Chetan Lal Gupta and others vs. The State of Madhya 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) .
6. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50846
3 WP-37602-2025
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."
7. Under these circumstances, this petition is disposed off 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50846
4 WP-37602-2025
representations. The authorities are at liberty to examine that the order of
classification of the employees concerned, 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.
8. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed off . No order as to costs.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
sp
