[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gendalal Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 February, 2026
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16179
1 WP-6830-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 25th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6830 of 2026
GENDALAL VERMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Mohan Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Darshan Soni - GA for the State.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-
"1) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the
respondents to give the benefits of regular/minimum of
the pay scale to the petitioner from the date i.e.
10.12.1991 of classification as skilled/semi-skilled
employees on which the petitioner has rendered services
since the date of classification and to pay the difference
of arrears on fixation of pay from the date of such
classification along with the interest @ 18% per annum
as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashvini Rai and others
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 771/2015 in SLP No.
25284/2012;
II) To call the relevant record, for kind perusal of this
Hon'ble Court;
III) Any other relief or direction or order which the
Hon'ble court may deem just and proper in the nature
and circumstances of the case including the costs of the
petition"
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16179
2 WP-6830-2026
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 petitioner cannot be extended to them in view of the aforesaid
order. The petitioner has 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 petitioner has 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 petitioner. The petitioner cannot claim the benefit of
minimum pay scale in view of the law laid down in the case of Ram Naresh
Rawat vs. Ashwini Ray and others - (2017) 3 SCC 436 after extension of
benefits of policy dated 07.10.2016, but so far as claim of the petitioner 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 petitioner is 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16179
3 WP-6830-2026
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
(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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16179
4 WP-6830-2026
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 is disposed of with a
direction to the petitioner to file comprehensive representation to respondent
No.2/Engineer-in-Chief, WRD, Bhopal regarding his claims with respect to
arrears of classified employee within a period of 10 days from today and in
case such representation is filed, 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 petitioner within a period of 90 days
from the date of receipt of such representation.
5) The Authority is also at liberty to examine the classification order
of the petitioner and also to examine that whether the order of classification
is still intact or not. If the petitioner is found entitled for the benefits as
claimed by him, the aforesaid benefits be also extended to him within the
aforesaid period.
6) No order as to costs.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
Astha
