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

The petitioners, classified as permanent employees on 20.06.2011, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to compel respondent No. 3 to pay the minimum of the pay scale from the date of their classification.

They also sought arrears of salary and consequential benefits in light of the Ramnaresh Rawat judgment.

The State argued that the petitioners had already opted for and received the benefits of the State’s policy dated 07.10.2016, which categorized daily wagers into skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled clusters with specific pay scales.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the minimum of the pay scale of the post they hold following their classification as permanent employees, despite the introduction of the 07.10.2016 policy.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to arrears of the minimum pay scale for the period between their date of classification (20.06.2011) and the date the 07.10.2016 policy was implemented.

Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray and others (2017) 3 SCC 436, which clarifies that classification as a "permanent employee" confers the status of permanency but does not equate to regularization on a specific post; however, such employees are entitled to the minimum of the pay scale of the post without increments.

State Policy dated 07.10.2016, which formulated specific pay categories for daily wagers, and the coordinate bench ruling in Chetan Lal Gupta v. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 39586 of 2024), which held that once an employee accepts the 2016 policy, they are entitled to the scales provided therein rather than the scale of the specific post they were working on.

The Court reasoned that of the two claims made by the petitioners, the claim for a minimum pay scale of the post post-2016 was unsustainable because they had already accepted the benefits of the State's categorization policy dated 07.10.2016.

Per Chetan Lal Gupta, these categories (skilled, semi-skilled, etc.) provide specific wages that override the general claim to the post's pay scale.

For the window between the date of classification (2011) and the extension of the 2016 policy benefits, the Court found that the petitioners remained entitled to the minimum pay scale as per the Ram Naresh Rawat precedent.

The Court emphasized that the authorities must verify if the classification orders remain intact before granting such arrears.

The petitioners were directed to file individual comprehensive representations to the Engineer-in-Chief, WRD, within 10 days; the respondent was ordered to decide these representations via a speaking order within 90 days and extend benefits if the petitioners' classification orders are still valid.