IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT

th

ON THE 16 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 6737 of 2017 SMT. ANJALI BHARGAVA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Bhanu Prakash Singh - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Rajendra Jain -Government Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER The present petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, prays for the following reliefs:-

"(i) That, a direction may kindly be given to the respondents to give the Service benefits including pay scale, increments and D.A of the post of Pump Operator from the date of classification of petitioner's husband as permanent employee w.e.f.21.04.2003 till the death of her husband i.e. 28.03.2011.

(ii) That, respondents may further be directed to consider the claim of petitioner for employment on any post on compassionate ground.

(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be given to the petitioner along with costs."

2. Petitioner submits that her husband despite having been classified as a permanent employee, has not been granted benefit of regular pay scale.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that identical petition has already been disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 5.9.2018 passed in WP No.20650/2018, relevant portion whereof reads as under:-

“The law in regard to the benefits flowing from an order of classification is now settled in view of the decision of Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray reported in 2017 (Vol 3) SCC 436, relevant extract of which is reproduced below for convenience and ready reference:-

''4........ The precise submission is that once they are conferred the status of permanent employee by the court and it is also categorically held that they are entitled to regular pay attached to the said post, not only the pay should be fixed in the regular pay scale, the petitioners would also be entitled to the increments and other emoluments attached to the said post.

18. Insofar as petitioners before us are concerned they have been classified as 'permanent'. For this reason, we advert to the core issue, which would determine the fate of these cases, viz., whether these employees can be treated as 'regular' employees in view of the aforesaid classification? In other words, with their classification as 'permanent', do they stand regularized in service?

26. 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 payscale with no increments. It is only the regularisation in service which would entail grant of increments etc. in the pay scale.

27. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any substance in the contentions raised by the petitioners in these contempt petitions. We are conscious of the fact that in some cases, on earlier occasions, the State Government while fixing the pay scale, granted increments as well. However, if some persons are given the benefit wrongly, that cannot form the basis of claiming the same relief. It is trite that right to equality under Article 14 is not in negative terms (See Indian Council of Agricultural Research & Anr. v. T.K.

Suryanarayan & Ors.).

28. These contempt petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.''

4. In view of the above, it is directed that in case, it is found that the classification of the petitioner's husband is intact, the petitioner shall be paid the minimum of the pay scale admissible to the post on which her late husband has been classified as permanent employee without any increment till the date he was declared Sthaikarmi. If any arrears are worked out, as a necessary consequence, the same be paid as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

5. With the aforesaid direction, petition stands disposed of.

(ANAND SINGH BAHRAW