Classified Permanent Employees Entitled to Minimum of Pay Scale Without Increments, Reaffirms Madhya Pradesh High Court Citing Ram Naresh Rawat Precedent - 2025-07-03

Classified Employees Entitled to Minimum Pay Scale, Not Increments: Madhya Pradesh HC

Gwalior , MP - The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has reaffirmed a crucial principle regarding the rights of "classified" permanent employees, directing the state to pay the minimum of the graded pay scale to a long-serving helper. The order, delivered by Justice Anil Verma , reiterates the legal position established by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Ram Naresh Rawat vs. Ashwini Ray .

---

Background of the Case

The petition (WP No. 38724 of 2024) was filed by Omi, who began his career as a Helper on a daily wage basis with a state department on June 1, 1981. After decades of service, he was officially classified as a permanent employee by an order dated May 5, 2011, with effect from the date he completed 10 years of service.

Despite this classification, the petitioner alleged that the respondent department failed to grant him the financial benefits associated with the post, specifically the minimum of the pay scale. He sought payment of these arrears from the date of his classification until August 31, 2016.

Arguments and Legal Precedent

The petitioner's counsel, Shri Bhanu Prakash Singh , argued that the case was squarely covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in Ram Naresh Rawat vs. Ashwini Ray (2017) 3 SCC 436. The counsel pointed out that identical petitions had already been decided by coordinate benches of the High Court based on this very precedent.

The court examined the principles laid down in the Ram Naresh Rawat case, which clarifies the distinction between a "permanent" and a "regular" employee. The Supreme Court had held:

"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 regularization in service which would entail grant of increments etc. in the pay scale."

This precedent establishes that classification as "permanent" grants an employee the right to the basic minimum pay of the corresponding regular post but does not automatically entitle them to yearly increments, which are a benefit of full regularization.

Court’s Final Decision and Directions

Justice Anil Verma , observing that the legal position was well-settled, disposed of the petition with a clear directive. Instead of adjudicating the claim on merits directly, the court ordered a time-bound procedural remedy.

The court directed the petitioner, Omi, to submit a detailed representation to the respondent authorities, outlining the factual and legal basis of his claim. The respondents were then instructed to:

Verify if the petitioner's classification as a permanent employee is intact.

If the classification is valid, consider his case in accordance with the law laid down in Ram Naresh Rawat .

Pay the petitioner the minimum of the pay scale admissible to the post of Helper, without any increments, for the period from his classification date up to August 31, 2016.

Calculate and pay any resulting arrears "as expeditiously as possible," preferably within a period of three months.

With these directions, the petition was disposed of, providing a clear path for the petitioner to receive his long-pending dues while reinforcing a significant principle of service jurisprudence in the state.