Classified employees are entitled to arrears of minimum pay scale from classification until implementation of the 2016 policy.

The petitioner, a classified employee, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay the minimum pay scale (Rs. 5200-20200 with Grade Pay Rs. 1900/- and Rs. 4440/- with Grade Pay Rs. 1300/-) from the date of his classification in 2011.

He further claimed arrears of salary from the date of classification until October 7, 2016, citing the precedent in Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwani Devi.

The State contended that since the petitioner opted for the benefits of the State’s policy dated October 7, 2016—which categorized daily wagers into skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled brackets—he was ineligible for the minimum regular pay scale per the decision in Chetan Lal Gupta v. State of M.P.

1. Whether a daily wager classified as a permanent employee is entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scale after the implementation of the State policy dated October 7, 2016?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to arrears of salary based on the minimum pay scale from the date of his classification until the implementation of the 2016 policy?

State Government Policy dated October 7, 2016, which formulated specific pay categories for daily wagers who could not be regularized under the mandate of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1.

Principle from Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwani Devi (2017) 3 SCC 436, which entitles classified employees to the minimum of the pay scale.

The recent coordinate bench ruling in Chetan Lal Gupta v. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 39586 of 2024), which held that categorization under the 2016 Scheme entitles employees only to the wages prescribed for their specific category (skilled/unskilled), not the scale of the regular post.

The court reasoned that because the petitioner accepted the benefits of the October 7, 2016 policy, his entitlement to a pay scale is governed by the specific categories (skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled) defined therein.

Following the logic in Chetan Lal Gupta, the court held that the 2016 Scheme was a distinct beneficial framework; therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the regular minimum pay scale of a post once classified under this scheme.

The court determined that for the interval between the date of the petitioner's initial classification (2011) and the effective date of the 2016 policy, the petitioner remains entitled to arrears based on the minimum of the pay scale as per the established law in Ram Naresh Rawat.

The court disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation to Respondent No. 2 (Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department) within 10 days. Respondent No. 2 was directed to pass a speaking order within 90 days, verify if the petitioner’s classification remains intact, and extend the eligible benefits/arrears accordingly.

No order as to costs was made.