Employees classified under the 07.10.2016 policy for daily wagers are entitled to category-specific pay scales rather than the minimum pay scale of the post, though they may claim arrears from the date of classification until the policy's implementation.

ORDER

This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-

"(i) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to give the benefits of regular/minimum of the pay scale to the petitioners from the date 02.08.1989 and 01.01.1993 of classification as skilled/semi-skilled employees on which the' ‘petitioners have rendered services since the date of classification and to pay the difference of arrears on fixation of pay from the date of such classification along with the interest @ 18% perannum as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the~ case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashvini Rai and others ContemptPetition (Civil) No. 771/2015 in SLP No. 25284/2012.

(ii) call the relevant record, for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court;.

(iii) Any other relief or direction or order which the Hon'ble court may deem just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case including the costs of the petition."

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 him in view of the aforesaid order. The petitioner has 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 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 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 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).

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 to this court but with the available documents, it is clear that the petitioners have been classified as permanent employees under th