[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8256
1 WP-9256-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 26th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 9256 of 2026
SATISH KUMAR PANDEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rishikesh Kumar - Advocate for the petitioners
Ms. Swati Ukhale - Government Advocate for the respondents State.
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article
226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs :-
"a). That this s Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the
respondents to extend the benefit of ad-hoc increase to
the petitioners belonging to Class-III category from the
date of their entitlement, at par with and from the date
on which the same was granted to Class-I, Class-II and
Class-IV employees, along with all consequential
arrears and respondents to revise the salary of the
petitioners and 'all consequential retiral benefits
accordingly within a stipulated period, along with
interest, in the interest of justice.
b). 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."
2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners, who are Class-III
employees of the erstwhile MPEB/MPSEB have not been extended the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8256
2 WP-9256-2026
benefit of 15% and 12% of adhoc increase of basic pay, as per the Pay
Revision Regulations of 1989 and 1998.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said benefit has
already been granted to Class-I, Class-II and subsequently to Class-IV
employees, but the Class-III employees have been discriminated and they are
bearing a huge financial loss.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the identical petition travelled
upto the Division Bench, which has been affirmed by the Apex Court in the
case of Sanjay Choure and others Vs. M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd., and
others passed in Writ Appeal No. 1714 of 2019 decided on 07.11.2025
(Annexure-P-9), wherein the Writ Court has dealt with the entitlement of
even Class-III employees for their entitlement of increase of basic pay, as
per the Pay Revision notifications of 1989 and 1998, respectively.
5. It is directed that since the Division Bench has dwell upon the
entitlement of the Class-III employees in the said Writ appeal extensively
therefore this Court directs the petitioner to file a detailed representation
along with the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the case
of Sanjay Choure and others (supra) wherein this Division Bench vide order
dated 07.11.2025 has passed a detailed order in respect to the entitlement of
even the Class-III employees.
6. If such representation is filed along with the said order, it is
directed that petitioners may file their representations in their respective
jurisdiction before the respondents No. 5 and 6, respectively, who shall
forward the representation of the petitioners before the respondents No.2 and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8256
3 WP-9256-2026
3, who shall decide the entitlement of the petitioners, as per the decision
rendered in the case of Sanjay Choure and others (supra).
7. It is made clear that if the petitioners are found entitled for the
grant of benefit which they are claiming in the petition as granted to others
situated Class-I, Class-II and Class-IV employees, the same benefit may also
be extended to the Class-III employees, within a period of sixty days, from
the date of receipt of the representations which would be forwarded by the
respondents No. 5 and 6.
8. It is made clear that if the respondents deviate from extending the
said benefit as dwell upon by this Court in the case of Sanjay Choure and
others (supra) the respondents are directed to pass a reasoned and a speaking
order. As the said order of Sanjay Choure and others (supra) has been
affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court therefore this Court is of the considered
opinion that there is no legal impediment on deciding the entitlement of the
petitioner.
With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.
No order as to costs.
(JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE
rashmi
