Sujoy Paul, J.

1. This order shall govern the disposal of all the aforesaid writ petitions. Since these matters are identical in nature, same were heard on the joint request of the parties and decided by this common order.

2. The facts are taken from Writ Petition No. 6762/2012 (Brajesh Chandra Parashar vs. State of MP & ors.).

The petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wager on 1.8.1982. He was working as copyist/clerk. The respondent passed the order dated 25.1.2006 and classified the petitioner as permanent employee. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners contended that they have been classified on the respective posts which they are holding as permanent employee. Hence, they are entitled for the pay scale and other benefits attached to the said post.

3. The respondents have filed the return and have contended that the petitioners' initial appointment as daily wager was not in accordance with law and, therefore, they are not entitled for any benefit. It is further contended that SLPs are pending before the Apex Court in which the order of this Court granting pay scale on classification is under challenge.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The concept of classification is based on the provisions of M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 (for brevity, the 'Standing Orders'). The said provision is statutory in nature. This Court way back in 1989 JLJ 36 (State of MP vs. Ramprakash) opined that on classification as permanent employee, the employee is entitled for regular pay scale. The Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 110/2011 (decided on 1.11.2011) opined as under:-

"whether an employee comes by way of normal recruitment process or through the process of classification, the fact remains that both i.e. the normally recruited employee and a classified employee work on the same post and perform the same duties. It cannot be held that the classification has any less effect or force as compared to the normal process of appointment, because the classification is also based upon the law in the form of Standing Orders and as such both employees who have been brought into service through either of the two processes permitted by law, as permanent employees against a particular post, should be entitled to the same benefits. Taking a contrary view would mean that the employees inducted through classification process would be saddled with an undesirable disability throughout their service, as compared to other employees which may tantamount to violation of the principle of "equal pay for equal work". Our view finds support from another Division Bench decision of this Court report in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Ram Prakash, (1989 JLJ 36).

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed."

The said order of Division Bench was assailed before the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No. (s) 20025/2011. The Apex Court opined as under:-

"In Rest of the Matters

Delay condoned.

Dismissed.

We direct the State Government to implement the order(s) passed by the High Court within eight months' time from today.

If for any reason, the petitioner-State does not implement the order(s) passed by the High Court, the respondents are at liberty to approach this Court by way of filing contempt petition(s)."

Thus, during the pendency of these matters, Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP of State Government.

6. Apart from this, similar orders passed by this Court are affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and by Supreme Court. In WP No. 6515/2011 (s) (Suresh Sharma vs. State of MP & others), this court followed the judgment of Ramprakash (supra) and granted regular pay scale from the date of classification. This was unsuccessfully challenged in WA No. 641/2012. The said writ appeal was dismissed on 8.10.2012. A three-Judges Bench of Apex Court dismissed the SLP on 21.1.2015. The o