Classified Permanent Employees Entitled to Arrears of Minimum Pay Scale Until Adoption of 2016 Policy

The petitioner, Sudaniya Kahar, invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay her husband the minimum of the pay scale of Rs. 5200–20200 with grade pay of Rs. 1900/- from the date of his classification, i.e., 19.09.2012, along with arrears of salary from that date until 07.10.2016, with all consequential benefits, relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Devi, (2017) 3 SCC 436.

The State, through its counsel, placed reliance on an order dated 18.12.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench in Chetan Lal Gupta and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, W.P. No. 39586 of 2024, contending that the relief claimed could not be extended to the petitioner.

It was undisputed that the petitioner's husband had already been extended, and had opted for, the benefit of the State Government's policy dated 07.10.2016, which classified daily wagers into three categories (skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled) with corresponding pay scales.

1. Whether the petitioner, whose husband had opted for and received benefits under the State policy dated 07.10.2016, could nonetheless claim the minimum of the pay scale of the post from the date of classification (19.09.2012) on the basis of Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Devi, (2017) 3 SCC 436.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to arrears of salary for the period from the date of classification (19.09.2012) until the date on which the benefit of the policy dated 07.10.2016 was extended to her husband.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Devi, (2017) 3 SCC 436, which establishes that employees classified as permanent employees are entitled to the minimum of the pay scale of the post.

Chetan Lal Gupta v. State of M.P., W.P. No. 39586 of 2024 (decided 18.12.2024), which held that employees classified under the State Scheme dated 07.10.2016 are entitled only to the pay scale of the respective category (skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled) under which they are classified, and not to the minimum of the scale of the post on which they were working.

Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, pursuant to which the 07.10.2016 Scheme was formulated for daily wagers who could not be regularized.

Chandra Bhushan Prasad Dwivedi v. State of M.P., W.P. No. 12210/2017 (decided 17.08.2017), where minimum-of-scale benefit was granted because the employees therein were classified as permanent employees.

Applying the binding reasoning of the Coordinate Bench in Chetan Lal Gupta (supra), the Court held that once the petitioner's husband had elected to accept the benefits of the policy dated 07.10.2016, the petitioner could not thereafter claim the minimum of the pay scale of the post under Ram Naresh Rawat (supra), because classification under the 2016 Scheme confers only the pay scale attached to the category in which the employee is placed, and the earlier order dated 20.06.2011 conferred no entitlement to arrears at the minimum of the scale.

The Court endorsed the Coordinate Bench's distinction that the benefit in Ram Naresh Rawat and Chandra Bhushan Prasad Dwivedi flowed from classification as permanent employees, whereas categorization under the 2016 Scheme merely fixes wages of the relevant category prevailing at the time, and does not equate to regularization on the post.

The Court carved out a limited entitlement: for the interregnum between the date of classification (19.09.2012) and the date of extension of the 2016 policy benefits (07.10.2016), the petitioner would be "duly entitled" to arrears in view of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra).

Given factual uncertainties—namely, whether the classification order relied upon was that of the petitioner's husband and whether that order remained intact—the Court deferred the determination of this arrears claim to the competent authority rather than adjudicating it directly.

The petitioner is, in principle, entitled to arrears from the date of classification till the date the 2016 policy benefits were extended, subject to verification.

The Court directed the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation before Respondent No. 3 within 10 days, and directed Respondent No. 3 to decide the same by a self-contained, reasoned speaking order in accordance with law and to communicate the outcome within 60 days of receipt; the authorities were left at liberty to examine whether the classification order pertained to the petitioner's husband and whether it remained in force.