[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Kumar Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 18796 OF 2025
THAKUR DAS RAJPUT
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 19188 OF 2025
RAKESH
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 19221 OF 2025
VISHVESHWAR
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 23510 OF 2025
SMT. SHEELA VANSHKAR
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 24324 OF 2025
SULTAN SINGH BATHAM
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 26387 OF 2025
MANGAL KUSHWAH
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 1/19/2026
5:46:13 PM
2
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 26394 OF 2025
CHATUR SINGH
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 26435 OF 2025
GHANSHYAM KUSHWAH
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 26439 OF 2025
BHAGWAT SINGH
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 26442 OF 2025
SURESH RAJAK
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 26446 OF 2025
MULAYAM SINGH
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 26448 OF 2025
NAMO NARAYAN SHUKLA
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 26449 OF 2025
NAWAL RAYAKWAR
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 1/19/2026
5:46:13 PM
3
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 26715 OF 2025
BADRI PRASAD KEWAT
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 26740 OF 2025
SHOUKIN KHAN
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 26748 OF 2025
LAXMA PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 26958 OF 2025
USHA DEVI SEN
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 27214 OF 2025
PANCHAM SINGH
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 27216 OF 2025
AMAR SINGH TOMAR
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 1/19/2026
5:46:13 PM
4
WRIT PETITION NO. 27592 OF 2025
SMT GOMA ALIAS GOWA BAI
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 27597 OF 2025
BAIJU KEWAT
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 27601 OF 2025
RAMPRAKASH SEN
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 27605 OF 2025
RAMESH VASHKAR
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 27620 OF 2025
HARI KUSHWAH
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 27625 OF 2025
MANSHARAM AHIRWAR
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 28746 OF 2025
GAUTAM SEN
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 1/19/2026
5:46:13 PM
5
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 28750 OF 2025
SURESH RAYAKWAR
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 28753 OF 2025
MUNNA LAL TIWARI
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 28763 OF 2025
BHAGWAN SINGH PAL
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 28773 OF 2025
RATIRAM JATAV
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 28791 OF 2025
KALYAN SINGH YADAV
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 29008 OF 2025
SURESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 29808 OF 2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 1/19/2026
5:46:13 PM
6
ARUN KUMAR JHA
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 30314 OF 2025
KOMAL KUSHWAHA
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 30317 OF 2025
SHOBHARAM YADAV
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 30320 OF 2025
DURGA DAS ALIAS DURGA PRASAD PRAJAPATI
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 30323 OF 2025
VEERENDRA KUMAR SHARMA
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 30335 OF 2025
AMAR SINGH
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 30339 OF 2025
VEERSINGH AHIRWAR
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 1/19/2026
5:46:13 PM
7
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 31429 OF 2025
KAILASH NARAYAN JOSHI
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 31430 OF 2025
RAMKISHAN KUSHWAHA
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 31432 OF 2025
SMT. KASTURI KUSHWAHA
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 31447 OF 2025
SHIVCHARAN YADAV
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 31498 OF 2025
KILASH NARAYAN GUPTA
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 31540 OF 2025
RAMSINGH RAJAK
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 32661 OF 2025
BALKISHAN BATHAM ALIAS BALU
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 1/19/2026
5:46:13 PM
8
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 33166 OF 2025
LALLU VANSHKAR
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 33168 OF 2025
RAMDEEN RAJAK
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 33171 OF 2025
SURESH SEN
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 33377 OF 2025
VANMALI BADAI
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 33378 OF 2025
RAJARAM KUSHWAHA
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 33379 OF 2025
RAMSEWAK RAYAKWAR
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 1/19/2026
5:46:13 PM
9
WRIT PETITION NO. 34943 OF 2025
BADRI PRASAD BANSKAR
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 34944 OF 2025
RAJESHWAR REDDY
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 34953 OF 2025
MUSTARI BEGAM
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 34954 OF 2025
DEVKI RAJAK
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 35167 OF 2025
SITARAM KEWAT
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 35322 OF 2025
DHARAJEET SINGH PARIHAR
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 35469 OF 2025
ANANT SINGH
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 1/19/2026
5:46:13 PM
10
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 35504 OF 2025
BHAGWAN DAS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 37246 OF 2025
RAMESH YADAV
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 37827 OF 2025
RAMESH SINGH CHAUHAN
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 38478 OF 2025
RAGHUNANDAN KORI
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 38480 OF 2025
SURESH KUMAR VISHWAKARMA
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 38543 OF 2025
KAMLESH
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 38640 OF 2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 1/19/2026
5:46:13 PM
11
HARGYAN BATHAM
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 38641 OF 2025
SMT. KALA BAI
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 38647 OF 2025
JAGANNATH BATHAM
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 39856 OF 2025
POORAN SINGH RAYAKWAR
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 39883 OF 2025
PARMANAND PRAJAPATI
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 41559 OF 2025
GANESH AHIRWAR
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 41560 OF 2025
SMT. BHANTI AHIRWAR
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 1/19/2026
5:46:13 PM
12
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 41632 OF 2025
PANCHU RAYAKWAR
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 42510 OF 2025
MANOHAR AHIRWAR
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 42512 OF 2025
RADIKA SHARAN SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 26831 OF 2025
PREETAM SINGH
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 26843 OF 2025
MANGLA
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri B.P.Singh, Shri Vinay Kumar and Shri Rajendra Kumar Tiwari,
Advocates for the respective petitioners.
Shri B.M.Patel and Shri Sohit Mishra- GA for the respondents/State.
RESERVED ON: 15/01/2026
ORDER PASSED ON: 19/01/2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 1/19/2026
5:46:13 PM
13
O R D E R
"Permanent classification" generally refers to an employment status with
ongoing job, distinct from temporary roles. However, the specific benefits of
permanent classification, like pay raises, depend on statutory provisions. In the
State of Madhya Pradesh, the issue of permanent classification is governed by
"Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961, commonly
known as "Standing Orders", and the rules framed thereunder. A good number of
litigation is being instituted in the courts raising various issues relating to
permanent classification.
2. The Apex Court settled the issue regarding benefits to be given to a
permanently classified employee, in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat vs. Ashwini
Ray reported in (2017)3 SCC 436. The Court framed following issue for
consideration:
"18.Insofar as the petitioners before us are concerned they have
been classified as "permanent". For this reason, we advert to the
core issue, which would determine the fate of these cases viz.
whether these employees can be treated as "regular" employees in
view of the aforesaid classification? In other words, with their
classification as "permanent", do they stand regularised in
service?"
3. The Apex Court then dealt with various provisions of Standing Orders as
also judgments rendered by it in various cases and thereafter held as under:
"24.It is, thus, somewhat puzzling as to whether the employee, on
getting the designation of "permanent employee" can be treated as
"regular" employee. This answer does not flow from the reading of
the Standing Orders Act and Rules. In common parlance, normally,
a person who is known as "permanent employee" would be treated
as a regular employee but it does not appear to be exactly that kind
of situation in the instant case when we find that merely after
completing six months' service an employee gets right to be treated
as "permanent employee". Moreover, this Court has, as would be
noticed now, drawn a distinction between "permanent employee"
and "regular employee".
*** *** ***
26.From the aforesaid, it follows that though a "permanent
employee" has right to receive pay in the graded pay scale, at the
same time, he would be getting only minimum of the said pay scale
with no increments. It is only the regularisation in service which
would entail grant of increments, etc. in the pay scale."
4. Thus, an employee, permanently classified, has been held entitled to
minimum of the pay scale without increments of the post on which he is so
classified. It is also held that such an employee is also entitled to minimum of the
pay scale as may be revised from time to time.
5. The petitioners in this batch of writ petition are also permanently classified
either by the order of Labour Court or by the order passed by the Water Resources
Department. They are claiming benefit of the minimum of the pay scale as has
been directed by Apex Court in Ram Naresh Rawat (supra). In normal
circumstances, such cases are disposed of by this Court directing the concerned
authority to consider the claim in light of Apex Court judgment and pass
appropriate order. However, when these cases came up for hearing on admission,
an objection was raised by learned Government counsel referring to the condition
incorporated in the order of permanent classification. For ready reference, the
condition in relation to which the objection is raised in extracted below:
**mDr nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkfj;ksa dks LFkk;h Js.kh esa oxhZd`r djus ls nSfud osru
Hkksxh ds osru varj dh dksbZ jkf'k ns; ugha gksxh ,oa budks orZeku esa iwokZuqlkj gh
osru ns; gksxk A
,o
bl laHkkx ds v/khu milaHkkxks esa dk;Zjr nSfud osru Hkksfx;ks dks fuEu fooj.kuqlkj
ty lalk/ku foHkkx ea=ky; Hkksiky ds ifji= ,oa eq[; vfHk;ark ;equk ty lalk/ku
foHkkx Xokfy;j ds i= dzekad 544@2002 ch&2@31 fnukad 20&3&02 df.Mdk
6 ,oa e/;izs'k vkS|ksfxd fu;kstu LFkkbZ vkKk,a vf/kfu;e 1961 ds fu;e *d* ds
varxZr fueZr vkKk;sa dzekad &2 esa ifjHkkf"kr LFkk;h Jfed ds :i esa dk;Zjr in
ij fuEu fooj.kuqlkj LFkk;h oxhZd`r fd;k tkrk gS oxhZd`r lHkh LFkkbZ deZpkfj;ksa
dks Je vk;qDr e-iz- 'kklu bankSj }kjk fu/kkZfjr osru ,oa vU; Hkrksa ds ykHk dh
ik=rk gksaxh A**
6. The aforesaid condition is quoted only as an example as the condition is
differently worded in different cases. However, the effect is that the benefit to be
given to permanently classified employee is restricted. Pertinently, all these orders
were passed much before the passing of judgment in Ram Naresh Rawat. The
objection raised by learned Govt. Advocate is that the permanent classification of
these petitioners is governed by the condition of the order of classification and
passing of Ram Naresh Rawat subsequently, would not entitle these petitioners to
the same benefit of minimum of pay scale. In other words, the contention of
learned Govt. Advocate is that these petitioners would be governed by condition
of their order and not by Ram Naresh Rawat.
7. Further, the petitioners claim the benefit of minimum of the pay scale from
the date of their permanent classification while the stand of the Govt. is that this
benefit would be given to them from the date of passing of judgment of Ram
Naresh Rawat or at best from the date of passing of order of their classification
and not from the date of classification.
8. Thus, following issues arises for consideration:
i. Whether the petitioners are not entitled to benefit of
minimum of pay scale in terms of Ram Naresh Rawat in
view of condition of their order of permanent classification?
ii. If entitled, whether the benefit of minimum of pay scale is to
be given from the date of judgment of Ram Naresh Rawat or
from the date of order of classification or from the date of
classification?
iii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest also on the
arrears of difference of salary payable to them?
ISSUE NO.(i):
9. The learned Govt. Advocate submitted that since the order of permanent
classification of petitioners was passed much before the passing of judgment in
the case of Ram Naresh Rawat, they would be governed by condition of their
order of classification and not by judgment passed by Apex Court. It is his
submission that the judgment passed in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat would
apply prospectively and since the petitioners have accepted the condition of their
classification order without any demur, they are bound by the same and now they
cannot claim the benefit of minimum of pay scale.
10. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for petitioners submitted that
Apex Court has held that the permanently classified employee is entitled to get
minimum of the pay scale and, therefore, contrary condition incorporated in their
order of classification is illegal and liable to be quashed. The petitioners have
therefore, challenged the condition of their orders which restricts their right to get
minimum of the pay scale. Shri B.P. Singh learned counsel appearing for
petitioner in some of the cases, also referred to various provisions of Standing
Orders to say that once a person acquires status of permanent employee under the
Standing Orders, he is entitled to all the benefits at par with a regular employee of
the Govt.
11. Considered the arguments of learned counsel for parties.
12. In view of judgment rendered by Apex Court in Ram Naresh Rawat, the
submission that a permanently classified employee is entitled to benefits at par
with regular employee, merit no consideration. The Apex Court has considered the
similar submission and has held that such an employee is entitled to minimum of
pay scale only.
13. The Apex Court in Ram Naresh Rawat has interpreted the provisions of
Standing Orders and the rules framed thereunder and also various judgments
previously rendered by Apex Court and thereafter held that a permanently
classified employee is entitled to minimum of the pay scale. It is thus a right of a
permanently classified employee to get minimum of the pay scale, as revised from
time to time. Therefore, a contrary condition in the order of classification, which
restricts the right of employee to get such benefit, has to be held as illegal and
unsustainable.
14. It is thus held that by virtue of judgment rendered by Apex Court in the
case of Ram Naresh Rawat, the permanently classified employee is entitled to
minimum of the pay scale despite contrary condition incorporated in their order of
classification.
ISSUE NO.(ii):
15. The learned counsel for respondents submitted that since the right to get
minimum of the pay scale has been declared by Apex Court in the case of Ram
Naresh Rawat only on 15.12.2016, the directions cannot be applied
retrospectively and at best the benefit can be given to the employees from the date
of order passed by Apex Court. Alternatively, he submitted that the benefit can be
given to them from the date of order of classification inasmuch as their status as
permanently classified employee is crystalized on this date. It is his submission
that the claim of employees to get minimum of pay scale from the date of their
classification is not acceptable in any situation.
16. The learned Govt. Advocate also submitted that the petitioners, though
classified years before, never raised any claim for payment of minimum of pay
scale and, therefore, on this count also they are not entitled to get the benefit from
date earlier to the date of passing of judgment by Apex Court. In support of his
submission, he relied upon judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of
Bichitrananda Behera vs. State of Orissa & ors. reported in (2023)18 SCC 420,
in the case of M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India reported in (1995)5 SCC 628, State
of Orissa vs. Mamata Mohanty in Civil Appeal No.1272/2011. He also relied
upon judgment passed by this Court in R.P. No.343 of 2023 (State of M.P. vs.
Ganga Prasad Dubey & ors.), Shriniwas Mishra vs. State of M.P. & ors. in W.P.
No.4802/2023, Rameshwar Prasad Tyagi vs. State of M.P. & ors. in W.P.
No.10365/2013, Preeti Kushwah vs. State of M.P. & ors. in W.A. No.1103/2020,
Nishar Ahmed vs. State of M.P. & ors. in W.P. No.5854/2017.
17. Refuting to the submissions made by learned Govt. Advocate, learned
counsels for petitioners referred to order, dated 16.10.2024, passed in the name of
Governor of Madhya Pradesh and has been signed by Deputy Secretary, Water
Resources Department, Bhopal. This order has been filed as Annexure P/2 in W.P.
No.24324/2025. A perusal of this order shows that a decision has been taken by
the State Govt. to make payment of difference of salary to permanently classified
employees from the date of their classification. The order is extracted in toto
hereunder:
"एफ क्रमममांक 3/1/2/287/2022/ससम0/19/31//1543 रमजज्य शमसन एतदददमरम
जल समांसमधन वविभमग कके ददैननक विकेतनभभोगगी कमर्मचमररज्ययों कभो ससमई विगर्गीकक त
ककज्यके जमनके कके फलसविरूप ममननगीज्य सविर्वोचच नज्यमज्यमलज्य दविमरम अविममननम
प्रकरण क्रमममांक 771/2015 ददमरम रममनरकेश रमवित प्रकरण मम पमररत आदकेश
ददनममांक 15-12-2016 मम अभभननधमर्मररत भसदधमनत कके पररप्रकेकज्य मम नज्यन
न तम
विकेतन (बबिनम विकेतन विद
क दध कके) तसम ममांहगमई भतके कके आधमर पर विकेतन अमांतर
रमभश कम भभगतमन कके समांबिमांध मम ननमनमनभसमर ननदर श जमररी करतम हदै:-
(अ) ससमज्यगी विगर्गीककत ककए जम चक
भ के ददैननक विकेतन भभोगगी कमर्मचमररज्ययों कके विकेतन
अमांतर रमभश भभगतमन कके प्रकरण मम ममननगीज्य सविर्वोचच नज्यमज्यमलज्य दविमरम
रममनरकेश रमवित प्रकरण मम अभभननधमर्मररत भसदधमनत कके पररप्रकेकज्य ससमज्यगी
विगर्गीककत ददनममांक सके ततसमज्य प्रचभलत विकेतनममन कके , नज्यननतम विकेतन (विकेतन
विद
क दध छभोडकर) तसम ममांहगमई भतके कके आधमर पर ससमई विगर्गीककत ददनममांक सके
ससमज्यगीकमर्गी कम विकेतन ददए जमनके कके ददनममांक 31-08-2016 असविम मतक ज्यभ
ददनममांक असविम ननज्यभमतगीकरण ददनममांक असविम सकेविमननविवक त ददनममांक असविम
सकेविममभकत ददनममांक तक (जभो भगी पहलके हभो) पररीक्षण उपरममांत विकेतन रमभश कम
भभगतमन ककज्यम जमविके। इस हकेतभ वविभमगमधज्यक्ष सतर सके अनभमनत प्रदमन करनके
उपरममांत समांबिमांदधत मभखज्य अभभज्यतम, जल समांसमधन वविभमग ददमरम अदग्रिम
कमज्यर्मविमहरी ककी जमविकेगगी ।
उपरभोकत अनभमनत इस शतर्म कके समस प्रदमन ककी जमतगी हदै कक
भभगतमन कके पनविर्म ससमई विगर्गीकरण आदकेश ककी पभषषष्टि समांबिमांदधत मभखज्य
अभभज्यतम, जल समांसमधन वविभमग ददमरम ककी जमए तसम दकेज्य रमभश ककी गणनम
कम पररीक्षण वविभमग मम पदसस ववितगीज्य सलमहकमर/समांभमगगीज्य लकेखम अदधकमररी
सके अननविमज्यर्म रूप सके करमज्यम जमए एविमां उकत भभगतमन कके पनविर्म ज्यदद कभोई
बिकमज्यम रमभश हभो तभो उसकम कष्टिभोतम आविशज्यक रूप सके ककम जमविके ।
ससमई विगर्गीककत ककज्यके जम चक
भ के ऐसके ददैननक विकेतन भभोगगी कमर्मचमररी जभो
उललकेखखत विकेतन अमांतर ककी रमभश प्रमपत करनके हकेतभ ननज्यममनस
भ मर पमत हह, ककी
अदज्यतन सच
न गी रममनरकेश रमवित प्रकरण पदैरम-20 मम उललकेखखत पमततम शतर
कम पमलन करतके हभए तदैज्यमर ककी जमज्यकेगगी एविमां समांबिमांदधत मख
भ ज्य अभभज्यमांतम, जल
समांसमधन वविभमग ददमरम अनम
भ भोदन पशचमत पमततम सनभ नषशचत हभोनके पर हरी
वविषज्यमधगीन विकेतन अमांतर अमांतर ककी रमभश कम भग
भ तमन प्रशमसककीज्य अनम
भ भोदन
उपरममांत ककज्यम जमविके।
(वि) ससमज्यगी विगर्गीककत ककए जम चक
भ के ददैननक विकेतन भभोगगी कमर्मचमररज्ययों
कके प्रकरण षजनमम ममननगीज्य नज्यमज्यमलज्य दविमरम विकेतन अमांतर रमभश (विकेतनममन
कके नज्यननतम विकेतनममन, विकेतन विद
क दध छभोडकर' तसम ममांहगमई भतके कके आधमर
पर) भभगतमन कके आदकेश ककए गए हदै असविम प्रकरण नज्यमज्यमलज्य मम लमांबबित हदै,
ऐसके 922 (समांलगन सच
न गी अनस
भ मर) ददैननक विकेतन भभोगगी कमर्मचमररज्ययों कके प्रकरण
ववितगीज्य भमर लगभग रुपज्यके 28.99 करभोड (रुपज्यके अठमईस करभोड नननविज्यमनविके
लमख ममत) मम एररज्यर रमभश (ससमज्यगी विगर्गीककत ददनममांक सके नज्यन
न तम विकेतनममन
कके अमांतर ककी रमभश) कम भग
भ तमन 03 सममन ककशतयों मम तगीन विषर मम ककज्यम
जमविकेगम। प्रसम ववितगीज्य विषर्म 2024-25, षददतगीज्य ककशत विषर्म 2025-26 एविमां
तत
क गीज्य ककशत विषर्म 2026-27 मम दभो जमविकेगगी।
(स) उपरभोकतमनभसमर नज्यमज्यमलज्यगीन ननणर्मज्य कके पमलन हकेतभ भवविषज्य मम
उदभनत हभोनके विमलके सममन शकेणगी समरूप प्रकरण, षजनमम ददैननक विकेनत भभोगगी
कमर्मचमररज्ययों कभो ससमई विगर्गीककत ददनममांक सके नज्यनतनम विकेतन अमांतर ककी रमभश
प्रदमज्य ककज्यम जमनम हदै, समसत प्रकरणयों मम प्रशमसककीज्य अनभमभोदन उपरममांत
विकेतन अमांतर रमभश कम भभगतमन ककज्यम जमविके।
2/ आदकेश ककी कमांडडकम - (बि) मम उललकेखखत 922 ददैननक विकेतन भभोगगी
कमर्मचमररज्ययों ककी समांलगन सनचगी अनभसमर अदग्रिम कमज्यर्मविमहरी एविमां पभषषष्टि कम
पररीक्षण वविभमगमधज्यक्ष कमज्यमर्मलज्य ददमरम ककज्यम जमविकेगम।
3/ ज्यह सविगीककनत ममांबत-पररषद कके आज्यष्टिम क्रमममांक 16 ननणर्मज्य ददनममांक 05
अकष्टिनबिर. 2024 कके अनभक्रम मम जमररी ककी जमतगी हह।"
18. Yet another order, dated 04.04.2025, (Annexure P/3 in W.P.
No.26831/2025) has been passed by Deputy Secretary, of the Water Resources
Department, Bhopal, whereby it is stated that the administrative decision for
making payment of arrears of difference of salary in one instalment has been
taken. It is stated in the order that the matter is being placed before cabinet for
approval. The order reads as under:
"i= dzekad ,Q 3@1@2@0031@2025@ih&1@320 Hkksiky] fnukad 04@04@2025
izfr]
dk;kZikyu ;a=h@laidZ vf/kdkjh
gjlh ty lalk/ku laHkkx]
Mcjk] ftyk&Xokfy;jA
fo"k;%& ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB Xokfy;j dk voekuuk
izdj.k dz- 1749@2019 Jh fgr panz 'kekZ] nS- os-Hkks- bySDVzf'k;u
fo:) f'ko'ks[kj 'kqDyk izeq[k lfpo ty lalk/ku foHkkx] esa ikfjr
varfje fu.kZ; fn- 24-03-2025 ds vuqlkj iw.kZ Hkqxrku djus ckcr~A
mijksDr fo"k;karxZr izdjk ds laca/k esa ys[k gS fd foHkkx }
okjk leLr nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkfj;ksa dks LFkkbZ oxhZd`r fd;s
tkus ds QyLo:i] eku0 lokZsPp U;k;ky; }okjk jke ujs'k jkor
izdj.k esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fl)kar ds ifjizs{; esa eaf= ifj"kn ls vuqeksnu
mijkar fnuk 16@10@2024 dks vkns'k tkjh fd;k x;k FkkA ijarq
ek0 U;k;ky;ksa esa nk;j fofHkUu voekuuk izdj.kksa n`f"Vxr j[krs gq;s
leLr nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkfj;ksa dks 'ks"k jkf'k dk ,deq'r
Hkqxrku fd;s tkus gsrq iz'kkldh; fu.kZ; fy;k tk pqdk gS] ftldh
Lohd`fr gsrq iqu% eaf= ifj"kn ls vuqeksnu izkIr fd;s tkus dh
dk;Zokgh izfdz;k/khu gS] ftlesa 15 fnol dk le; yxus dh laHkkouk
gSA
vr% mijksDrkuqlkj izdj.k dh oLrqfLFkfr ls ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky;] [k.MihB Xokfy;j dks voxr djk;k tkuk lqfuf'pr
djsaA"
19. Thus, when the department itself has taken a decision to make payment of
difference of salary to permanently classified employees from the date of their
classification, the same has to be applied uniformly to all employees of
department. Their claims cannot be rejected on the ground of delay.
20. The judgment relied upon by learned Govt. Advocate are based upon delay
and laches on the part of employee in raising claim. The benefit has been
restricted to three years previous to the date of their raising claim. This Court in
Ganga Prasad Dubey & ors. & Shriniwas Mishra (supra) was dealing with claim
of a permanently classified employee. However, these judgments were rendered
before passing of order, dated 16.10.2024, by State Govt. Therefore, these orders
do not strengthen the case of respondents in any manner.
21. The case of Rameshwar Prasad Tyagi (supra) was different on facts
inasmuch as the petitioner therein was claiming regularisation of his service from
back date. The order therefore, is distinguishable on facts.
22. Likewise, the case of Preeti Kushwah (supra) was a case where the
permanently classified employee expired in 2015. He never raised the claim
during his lifetime. After his death, his legal heir raised the claim belatedly which
was not accepted by this Court on the ground of delay and laches. This judgment
is also of no help to the respondents.
23. The Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Bichitrananda Behera
& Mamata Mohanty are the cases which deals with the effect of delay and laches
in service matters. Again, ratio of these cases would not apply in the facts of these
cases where the Govt. itself has taken a decision to grant benefit from the date of
classification. The case of M.R. Gupta (supra) deals with theory of continuing
cause of action and in the facts of these cases, the ratio of this judgment is also not
attracted.
24. It is however, observed that the judgments cited by learned Govt. Advocate
would have been attracted, had the order, dated 16.10.2024, was not passed by
State Govt. It is also seen that alongwith the order, dated 16.10.2024, a list of 922
persons has been attached and it is stated that Rs.28.99 crore has been sanctioned
for making payment to them. It is clarified here that, even if the name of any
permanently classified employee is not mentioned in the attached list, he is also
entitled to get the minimum of the pay scale from the date of his classification on
the principles of parity.
25. Thus, in view of the order, dated 16.10.2024, it is held that the permanently
classified employees of Water Resources Department are entitled to get the benefit
of minimum of pay scale from the date of their respective classification. In case of
employees of other departments, if no such decision is taken by Govt., they would
be entitled to benefit of minimum of pay scale from the date, three years prior to
their raising claim.
ISSUE (iii):
26. So far as the claim of interest on the arrears payable to the petitioners, it is
seen that the cause of action for payment of minimum of pay scale arose with the
passing of order by Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra). Till
this date, no one has infact raised any claim in this regard. Further, even after
passing of said judgment by Apex Court, the petitioners have filed the writ
petition now after lapse of about 8 years. Therefore, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the petitioners shall not be entitled to interest on the amount of
arrears payable to permanently classified employee.
27. In view of the discussion made above, these writ petitions are disposed off
with the following directions:
i. the petitioners (employees of Water Resources Department)
shall be entitled to the benefit of minimum of pay scale with
dearness allowance (without increments) from the date of their
respective classification;
ii. they shall not be entitled to any interest on the amount of
arrears of difference of salary in view of direction no.(i);
iii. the condition of the order of classification which restricts
their claim to get minimum of pay scale, stands quashed;
28. The respondents are directed to do the needful for extending benefit, as
aforesaid, to the petitioners, within a period of 120 days from the date of
submission of certified copy of the order by respective petitioners to the
competent authority.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
JPS/-
