Employees accepting the 2016 classification policy cannot claim minimum pay scales but may pursue pre-policy arrears.

The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant them the minimum of the pay scales of Rs. 5,200–20,200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 1,900 and Rs. 4,440 with Grade Pay of Rs. 1,300, allegedly from the date of their classification in 2012, together with arrears up to 7 October 2016 and consequential benefits, relying principally on Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Devi, (2017) 3 SCC 436.

The State submitted that the petitioners had already been granted benefits under the policy dated 7 October 2016, which classified employees into skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled categories with corresponding pay scales.

It relied on the Coordinate Bench decision in Chetan Lal Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 39586 of 2024, decided on 18 December 2024.

The Court noted that, although the petitioners could not claim the minimum pay scale after receiving benefits under the 7 October 2016 policy, their claim for arrears from the date of classification until the policy benefits were extended required consideration under Ram Naresh Rawat.

Whether the petitioners, after receiving benefits under the policy dated 7 October 2016, were entitled to claim the minimum of the pay scale of the posts on which they were working from the date of their classification?

Whether the petitioners were entitled to arrears for the period from the date of their classification until the benefits under the policy dated 7 October 2016 were extended to them?

Whether the petitioners’ alleged classification order dated 16 August 2011 remained valid and constituted the relevant classification order for determining their entitlement?

The Court applied the policy dated 7 October 2016, under which daily-wage employees were classified as skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled and granted the corresponding category-based pay scales.

Relying on Chetan Lal Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court held that such categorisation entitled employees to the wages or pay scale applicable to their respective category, but not automatically to the minimum of the pay scale attached to the post on which they performed duties.

The Court distinguished the principle in Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Devi, (2017) 3 SCC 436, under which classified permanent employees could claim the minimum of the relevant pay scale, and held that the claim for arrears for the pre-policy period required examination on the facts of each case.

The Court also recognised the broader context of the State’s scheme for daily-wage employees who had not been regularised pursuant to Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1.

The Court accepted the State’s submission that the petitioners had opted for and received benefits under the 7 October 2016 policy.

Consequently, in view of Chetan Lal Gupta, they could not seek the minimum pay scale of the posts on which they were allegedly working merely by relying on their categorisation.

However, the Court treated the claim for arrears from the date of classification until implementation of the 7 October 2016 policy as a distinct issue potentially covered by Ram Naresh Rawat.

Since the record did not conclusively establish whether the order dated 16 August 2011 was the operative classification order or whether it continued to remain valid, the Court did not finally adjudicate the petitioners’ entitlement.

Instead, it directed the petitioners to submit individual, comprehensive representations and required the competent authority to verify the relevant classification record and determine the claim by a reasoned order.

Their claim for arrears from the date of classification until extension of the policy benefits was left open for determination by the competent authority.

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file individual comprehensive representations before Respondent No. 3 within 10 days.

The authority was directed to pass and communicate a self-contained speaking order in accordance with law within 90 days of receiving the representations, after examining the status and legal effect of the order dated 16 August 2011.

If the petitioners were found entitled, the corresponding benefits were to be granted.

The petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.