##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8502

1 WP-2915-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI

th

ON THE 30 OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 2915 of 2026

RAVENDRA PRASAD TRIPATHI

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Ms. Shivani Dahiya - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Darshan Soni - Government Advocate for the 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 minimum of payscale Rs. 5200- 20200 gradepay

Rs.1900/- since the date of his classification i.e.

20.06.2011 and also pay him 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 petitioner cannot be extended to them in view of the aforesaid

order. The petitioner has already been extended the benefit of the policy

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: VARSHA

CHOURASIYA

Signing time: 31-01-2026

13:21:01

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8502

2 WP-2915-2026

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 petitioner has 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 petitioner. The petitioner cannot claim the benefit of minimum pay

scale in view of the law laid down in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat vs.

Ashwini Ray 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 petitioner 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 him is concerned, the

petitioner is duly entitled in view of judgment passed in the case of Ram

Naresh Rawat (supra).

3. The Co-ordinate 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

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: VARSHA

CHOURASIYA

Signing time: 31-01-2026

13:21:01

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8502

3 WP-2915-2026

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

Prades