Classified employees under the 2016 Policy are entitled to arrears from classification date until policy implementation.

The petitioners, daily-wage employees of the State classified pursuant to an order dated 20.06.2011, invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay them the minimum of the pay scale of Rs. 5200–20200 with grade pay of Rs. 1900 from the date of their classification (20.06.2011), together with arrears of salary from 20.06.2011 till 07.10.2016, with all consequential benefits, in reliance upon Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Devi, (2017) 3 SCC 436.

The State Government had introduced a policy dated 07.10.2016 under which daily wagers were considered for classification as permanent employees across three categories — skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled — each carrying a distinct pay scale; the petitioners had chosen to accept and had been extended the benefits of this policy.

The State opposed the writ by relying upon an order dated 18.12.2024 of a Coordinate Bench in Chetan Lal Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 39586 of 2024, contending that the relief claimed could not be extended to the petitioners in view thereof.

1. Whether the petitioners, having availed the benefits of the State's classification policy dated 07.10.2016, could thereafter claim the minimum of the regular pay scale (Rs. 5200–20200, grade pay Rs. 1900) of the post on which they worked, on the strength of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra).

2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to arrears of salary for the period from the date of classification (20.06.2011) until the date the benefits of the policy dated 07.10.2016 were extended to them.

The Court applied the principle from Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Devi, (2017) 3 SCC 436, entitling classified/permanent employees, from the date of classification, to the minimum of the pay scale of the post.

Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, on regularisation of daily wagers, in consequence of which directions the State had framed the scheme dated 07.10.2016 for daily wagers who could not be regularised.

The Court treated as controlling the Coordinate Bench decision in Chetan Lal Gupta (supra), which held that classification under the scheme dated 07.10.2016 entitles employees only to the pay scale of their respective category, and that the prior classification order dated 20.06.2011 confers no entitlement to arrears of the minimum of the scale of the post on which duties were performed.

Chandra Bhushan Prasad Dwivedi v. State of M.P., W.P. No. 12210/2017 (decided 17.08.2017), the Court distinguished the same on the footing that there the employees were classified as permanent employees, justifying grant of the minimum of the scale.

The Court reasoned that the petitioners had consciously opted for and received the benefits of the policy dated 07.10.2016, under which they were placed in distinct categories carrying their own pay scales; having accepted that classification, they could not simultaneously invoke Ram Naresh Rawat to claim the minimum of the regular pay scale of the post on which they worked, since the categorisation under the scheme was only for the purpose of claiming wages of the said category prevailing at the relevant time, and the order dated 20.06.2011 conferred no independent entitlement to arrears of the minimum of the scale of the post.

Following the binding coordinate view in Chetan Lal Gupta, the Court held the claim for minimum of the pay scale to be misconceived.

Applying Ram Naresh Rawat (supra), the Court held that the petitioners were "duly entitled" in respect of arrears from the date of classification till the date the 07.10.2016 benefits were extended to them.

Rather than adjudicating the arrears claim conclusively, the Court channelled it through a representation mechanism, permitting the authorities to verify whether the classification order relied upon actually pertained to the petitioners and whether it remained intact.

The petitioners were entitled to pursue their claim for arrears from the date of classification (20.06.2011) till the extension of the 07.10.2016 policy benefits, in view of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra).

The Court disposed of the petition with directions that: (a) the petitioners file individual, separate, comprehensive representations before the competent authority within 10 days; (b) the competent authority dwell upon the same, pass a self-contained speaking order in accordance with law, and communicate the outcome within 60 days of receipt; (c) the authorities remain at liberty to examine whether the classification order concerned the petitioners and whether it was still intact; and (d) if the petitioners were found entitled, the claimed benefits be extended within the stipulated period.