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

th

ON THE 13 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 5570 of 2026 RAJKUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Darshan Soni - G.A. for the respondent/State.

ORDER This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-

"7.1 That, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire service records in the interest of justice.

7.2 Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to pay minimum of pay scale Rs. 5200-20200 grade pay Rs. 1900 /- since the date when petitioners were classified as permanent employees i.e. 06.09.2011 and also pay the arrears of salary from the said date along with all the consequential benefits in the light of (Annexure P/4 and P/5), in the interest of justice.

7.3 Any other relief deems fit may also be granted including cost of litigation."

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 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 they have 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 Ray and others - (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 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 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 to this court but with the available documents, it is clear that t