IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI

nd

ON THE 22 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 2386 of 2026 SANGEETA VERMA AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Dheerendra Kumar Pandey - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Hitendra Singh - Govt. Advocate for State.

ORDER This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-

"i. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay arrears of minimum of payscale Rs.4440-7440 gradepay Rs.1300/- since the date of their classification as permanent employee dt. 12.01.2009 and also pay them arrears of salary from the said date till the dt. 07.10.2016 with all consequential benefit in reference of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini Devi and others reported (2017) 3 SCC 436 : 2017 (153) FLR 609 in the interest of justice.

ii. To grant any other relief which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2) The counsel appearing for the State has brought to the notice of this Court an order dated 18.12.2024, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.39586 of 2024 (Chetan Lal Gupta and others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others) and it is submitted that the relief claimed by the petitioners cannot be extended to them in view of the aforesaid order. The petitioners herein are the legal heirs of the deceased-

employee and they have already been extended the benefit of the policy dated 07.10.2016 introduced by the State Government wherein three categories have been formulated and respective pay scales have been granted against those categories. The petitioners have chosen to get the benefit of the policy dated 07.10.2016. Under these circumstances, the pay scale for which he has been extended the benefit of policy dated 07.10.2016 is to be extended to the petitioners. The petitioners cannot claim the benefit of minimum pay scale in view of the law laid down in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat vs. Ashwini Devi and others reported in (2017) 3 SCC 436 after extension of benefits of policy dated 07.10.2016, but so far as claim of the petitioners with respect to grant of arrears from the date of classification till the date when the benefit of policy dated 07.10.2016 was extended to them, is concerned, the petitioners are duly entitled in view of judgment passed in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra).

3) The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chetan Lal Gupta (supra) has considered the aforesaid proposition and has held as under:-

". . . Although the government has issued a policy dated 07.10.2016 in which those daily wagers have been considered for classification as permanent employees and categorised in different categories as skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled, and different pay- scales have been provided to them in their respective categories. The scheme was formulated by the government for daily wagers, who for some reason could not be regularised pursuant to the direction issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1 and therefore to grant them benefit, the scheme was introduced. Although, it appears that the petitioners from the date of categorisation on their respective categories, considering their nature of work became entitled to get the minimum of the pay-

scale of the post on which they were performing the duties alike those classified as permanent employees but this misconception has no standing. Although, certain orders have been passed by the coordinate bench directing to grant the employees the benefit of minimum of scale relying upon the law laid down by the High Court in the case of Chandra Bhushan Prasad Dwivedi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh passed in W.P.No.12210/2017 on 17.08.2017 and also relying upon the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra). Indeed, what were the documents available before the court, are not known