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

The petitioners, classified as permanent employees on 23.02.2011, sought a writ of mandamus directing the State to pay them the minimum of the pay scale (Rs. 5200 – 20200 + Grade Pay Rs. 1900) from the date of their classification until the implementation of the State’s new policy on 07.10.2016.

The State contended that the petitioners had already accepted the benefits of the 07.10.2016 policy, which categorized daily wagers into skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled groups with specific pay scales.

The State argued that while the petitioners could not claim a higher minimum pay scale post-2016, they might be entitled to arrears based on their classification status for the period preceding the 2016 policy.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scale after having accepted the benefits and categorization under the State policy dated 07.10.2016.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to arrears of the minimum of the pay scale from the date of their classification (23.02.2011) until the date the 07.10.2016 policy was extended to them.

Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Devi and others (2017) 3 SCC 436, which clarified the entitlement of "classified" permanent employees to the minimum of the pay scale without increments.

Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 regarding the regularisation of daily wagers.

Coordinate Bench decision in Chetan Lal Gupta v. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 39586 of 2024), which held that categorization under the 2016 policy supersedes claims for regular pay scales of the post, but does not extinguish rights to arrears accrued under previous classification orders.

The Court reasoned that once the petitioners accepted the State’s 07.10.2016 policy—which formulated specific pay categories for daily wagers—they could no longer claim the minimum of a higher regular pay scale for the post, as their status was governed by that specific scheme.

the Court observed that for the period between their initial classification as permanent employees (2011) and the adoption of the 2016 policy, the petitioners maintain a valid legal claim for the minimum of the pay scale.

The Court emphasized that the 2016 policy provided wages based on categories (skilled/unskilled) rather than the scale of the specific post, making the post-2016 claim for a different pay scale unsustainable.

The Court disposed of the petition by directing the petitioners to file individual comprehensive representations to the respondent No. 3 (the authority) within 10 days.

Respondent No. 3 was directed to pass a speaking order within 60 days and extend any found benefits to the petitioners within that period.