01Facts
The petitioner sought arrears of minimum pay scale from his classification on 17 January 2014 until he received permanent status on 1 September 2016, and benefits under the M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 2017, including consequential revision of retiral dues.
p. 1He retired on 31 December 2024 and had submitted a representation dated 8 July 2026.
p. 1He relied on decisions of the High Court in Komal v. State of M.P. and Others, W.P. No. 41283 of 2024, decided on 6 January 2025, and Laxminarayan and Others v. State of M.P. and Others, W.P. No. 14925 of 2024, decided on 17 September 2025.
p. 2 · ¶ 202Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioner’s entitlement to the minimum pay scale under the 7th Pay Revision should be considered in light of the cited High Court decisions
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 2–4ii.2. Whether the respondents should consider the petitioner’s claim under the M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 2017, including arrears for the period between classification and grant of permanent status
p. 3 · ¶ 503Law Applied
The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct consideration of the petitioner’s claim.
p. 2 · ¶ 2 · p. 3 · ¶ 3It relied on the principles laid down in Komal v. State of M.P. and Others and Laxminarayan and Others v. State of M.P. and Others concerning the minimum pay scale under the 7th Pay Revision, without restating those principles in this order.
p. 2 · ¶ 2 · p. 3 · ¶ 3The Court also directed consideration of the claim under the M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 2017.
p. 3 · ¶ 504Reasoning
The Court did not determine the petitioner’s entitlement to the claimed benefits.
p. 3 · ¶ 3–6Instead, noting the cited decisions addressing the same issue, it directed respondent No. 3 to assess the petitioner’s claim under the 7th Pay Revision in accordance with those decisions.
p. 3 · ¶ 3–6It further required consideration of the 2017 Pay Revision Rules and the claimed arrears for the period from classification to permanent status.
p. 3 · ¶ 3–6If the claim is rejected, the responsible respondent must give cogent reasons and communicate them to the petitioner.
p. 3 · ¶ 3–605Holding
The petition was disposed of with directions to respondent No. 3 to consider the petitioner’s eligibility for the minimum pay scale under the 7th Pay Revision within 60 days of receiving a certified copy of the order.
p. 3 · ¶ 3–7If found eligible, the benefit must be extended within a further 15 days; if found ineligible, cogent reasons must be communicated within the specified period.
p. 3 · ¶ 3–7The respondents must also consider the claim under the 2017 Pay Revision Rules and arrears from classification until permanent status was granted on 1 September 2016.
p. 3 · ¶ 3–7Original Court PDF
Kamal Singh DewdavsState Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary Water Resources Department
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
