[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kunjlata Dehariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 March, 2026
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24926
1 WP-10368-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 26th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 10368 of 2026
SMT. KUNJLATA DEHARIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Naveen Saini - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Girish Kekre G.A. appeared for respondents.
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this petition calling in question the legality
and validity of Clause 2 of the impugned orders dated 01.01.2025,
20/03/2025, 13/08/2025 and 17/09/2025 contained in Annexure P-1.
2. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the aforesaid
clause is based on circular dated 12.12.2019 issued by the General
Administration Department of Govt. of M.P. The said circular came up for
consideration before Division Bench of this Court at Indore in W.A. No.
1498 of 2024 (State of M.P. Vs. Dilliraj Bhilala) and the Division Bench
vide order dated 28.4.2025 virtually struck down the aforesaid circular as the
Court came to a conclusion that there stood no logic behind grant of reduced
salary in three slabs during probation period. Again the said decision was
followed by another Division Bench of this Court at Indore in W.A. No.
2977 of 2025 (Indore Municipal Corporation Vs. Vinita Tiwari and others) .
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24926
2 WP-10368-2026
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, the issue is no more res integra and the
impugned clause of impugned impugned orders dated 01.01.2025,
20/03/2025, 13/08/2025 and 17/09/2025 contained in Annexure P-1 are
liable to be set aside.
3. The counsel for the State has opposed the contentions raised by the
counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the impugned clause in the
advertisement is in consonance with the circular dated 12.12.2019 and
therefore, no interference in the present petition is required and the petition is
liable to be dismissed.
4. No other point is argued or pressed by the counsel for the parties.
5. Heard submissions and perused the record.
6. On perusal of record, it reflects that the issue involved in the present
petition does not require much debate in view of the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in Indore Municipal Corporation (supra) , wherein the
Division Bench in paragraphs 6 and 7 observed as under:-
"6. For the Class III and Class IV employees, the
circular dated 12.12.2019 was issued by the General
Administration Department for the persons whose
services are governed by the Madhya Pradesh Civil
Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961
under Rule 8(1). Clause 2 of the circular stipulates that
the above conditions shall be made applicable to those
posts for which the Public Service Commission does
not conduct the examination. The Finance Department
was authorized to make the amendment in the Madhya
Pradesh Fundamental Rules. Therefore, there cannot be
a discrimination between the employees appointed
through MPPSC and the employees appointed by other
agencies of the State. Those who are appointed through
the MPPSC will get the minimum pay scales and the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24926
3 WP-10368-2026
employees appointed by other State agencies will get
70%, 80% and 90% of the minimum pay scale during
the first, second and third years of the probation period.
There is no reasonableness in creating two classes of
probationers. The circular dated 12.12.2019 of the GAD
has already been deprecated by this Court in W.A.
No.1498 of 2024 in case of the State of Madhya
Pradesh and Ors. vs. Dilliraj Bhilala vide order dated
28.04.2025. If an employee is appointed on a post
through proper channel after following the due process
even on probation, he/she is entitled to get minimum
pay scale at par with other employees under the
principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work'. There is no
reason or logic for payment of stipend at the rate of
70%, 80% and 90% of the minimum pay scale during
the probation period. Therefore, the objection taken by
the appellant is not tenable. The petitioners have worked
on the post in question therefore they are entitled to get
full salary of the post without any deduction.
7. In view of the discussions in the foregoing
paragraphs, we do not find any illegality or perversity in
the impugned order passed by the learned writ Court.
Accordingly, finding no ground for interference, this
appeal stands dismissed."
7. On perusal of aforesaid, it reflects that the circular dated 12.12.2019
was dealt with by the Division Bench and accordingly, considering the same,
the Court came to conclusion that the said circular was issued without
disclosing any justification for the same and accordingly, the same was held
to be invalid.
8. In view of the aforesaid, as the issue has already been dealt with by
the Division Bench of this Court, the present petition deserves to be allowed.
9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Clause 2 of the impugned order
contained in Annexure P-1 dated 01.01.2025 (Petitioner Nos.7 & 8),
20/03/2025 (Petitioner Nos.4 & 6) 13/08/2025 (Petitioner Nos.1,3 & 5) and
17/09/2025 (Petitioner No.2) stand set aside. The petitioners are entitled for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24926
4 WP-10368-2026
100% salary for the period of probation as well. Let all consequential
benefits along with arrears be calculated and paid to the petitioners within a
period of 90 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
Astha
