[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dilip Kumar Pawar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10112
1 WP-24072-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 24th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 24072 of 2023
DILIP KUMAR PAWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bhanu Prakash Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Brij Mohan Patel Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
1 . The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a direction to
the respondents to grant minimum of pay scale on the post on which, he was
permanently classified from the date of classification i.e. 01/10/1989 till date
of order i.e. 23/12/2004.
2 . It is no more disputed that the petitioner was permanently classified
pursuant to the order dated 24/12/2004 on the post of Helper. When the
benefit of minimum of pay scale was not given to the petitioner, he claims
benefit in view of the Apex Court judgment delivered in the case of Ram
Naresh Rawat vs Sri Ashwini Ray & Ors reported in (2017) 3 SCC 436 . The
petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 3536/2015, which was
disposed of vide order dated 18/06/2015 and the respondents were directed to
consider the petitioner's case for grant of benefit, in view of order passed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10112
2 WP-24072-2023
Apex Court in the case of Kaluram Narwariya vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (W.P. No.
2000/2015 dated 06/04/2015).
3. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner has been granted benefit
of minimum of pay scale from the date of order. The petitioner claims benefit
from the date of classification i.e. 01/10/1989.
4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the earlier round
of litigation, this Court has specifically directed the respondents to consider
the petitioner's case in the light of the order passed in the case of Kaluram
Narwariya (supra). This Court has directed for grant of benefit from the date
of classification as is evident from the direction issued. It is further
submitted that the respondents/department itself has taken decision to confer
the benefit of minimum of pay scale from the date of classification. He thus
submits that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit from the date of
classification.
5 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the
prayer made by the petitioner and submits that there is no order passed by the
department to confer minimum of pay scale from the date of classification
and, therefore, the benefit has already been given to the petitioner from the
date of order of classification. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of
the instant petition.
6 . Without going into details of the case, it is sufficient to note that in
the earlier round of litigation while passing the order dated 18/06/2015 in
W.P. No. 3536/2015, this Court has directed the respondents to consider the
petitioner's case in the light of order passed in the case of Kaluram
Narwariya (supra).
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10112
3 WP-24072-2023
7 . The petition of Kaluram Narwariya (supra) was disposed of by this
Court with the following directions :-
"Resultantly, this petition is disposed of by following
directions :-
(1) The petitioner shall file a fresh representation before
respondents along with the proof of acquiring permanent
status by way of classification. The respondents shall verify
and if petitioner's permanent status remains intact, he shall be
given similar treatment, i.e., grant of regular pay scale
attached to the permanent post from the date of classification
as permanent employee.
(2) The respondents shall also grant increments attached to
the pay scale and if rules permit, extend benefit of DA in
favour of the petitioner.
(3) The respondents shall also pass a speaking order
regarding claim of grant of seniority to the petitioner from
the date of classification as permanent employee.
(4) If for any justifiable reason, the petitioner is not found
entitled for any of the benefits claimed, a detailed and
reasoned order be passed and communicated to the petitioner.
The aforesaid exercise be completed within 120 days from
the date of production of copy of this order along with the
representation.
(5) It is made clear that it will not be open to the respondents
to deny relief to the petitioners on the ground that they were
not litigants in W.A. No. 1266/2010 and other similar
matters, which were decided on merits, if they are otherwise
similarly situated. Petition is disposed of."
8 . Perusal of the order passed in the said case, it is evident that
direction was issued to the respondents to grant benefit to the petitioner from
the date of classification. It is not disputed by the respondents that petitioner
is permanently classified and is entitled to the minimum of pay scale on the
post of Helper. In view of the Apex Court judgment delivered in the case of
Ram Naresh Rawat (supra), the respondents have already
conferred minimum of pay scale to the petitioner from the date of
classification i.e.23/12/2004.
9 . Thus, in view of the specific direction issued in the earlier round of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10112
4 WP-24072-2023
litigation filed by the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to get the minimum
of pay scale to the post of Helper from the date of his classification i.e.
01/10/1989.
10. The petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respondents to
give minimum of pay scale to the post of Helper to the petitioner w.e.f
01/10/1989 till 23/12/2004. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case, the petitioner is held not entitled to interest on amount of
arrears.
11. Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of 90 days
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order passed today.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
Durgekar
