MP HC Revives Permanent Worker’s 2011 Minimum-Pay Claim After Peers Won Arrears, Orders Consideration Within 60 Days Of Representation

In brief

The question

Whether the appellant’s writ petition was properly dismissed for delay and laches, despite his claim that similarly placed employees had been granted arrears from the date of their classification.

The court held

The appeal was allowed, and the order dismissing W.P. No. 22082/2026 was set aside.

It also directed

The respondents were directed to consider the appellant’s claim in light of the orders dated 16 October 2024 and 9 October 2024 within 60 days from submission of his representation and a certified copy of the appellate order.

01Facts

The appellant was classified as a permanent employee in 2011 but received the benefit of the increased minimum pay scale only from 1 September 2016.

¶ 1 · p. 1

He sought arrears from the date of classification, relying on relief granted to similarly placed employees, including employees whose claims dated back to 2011.

¶ 2–4 · pp. 1–3

His writ petition was dismissed on 13 July 2026 for delay and laches.

¶ 2–4 · pp. 1–3

He appealed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

¶ 1 · p. 1

02Issues

i.Whether the appellant’s writ petition was properly dismissed for delay and laches, despite his claim that similarly placed employees had been granted arrears from the date of their classification.

¶ 1, 4 · p. 1, 3

ii.Whether the appellant’s claim should be considered in light of the orders granting arrears to similarly placed employees and the Water Resources Department’s general letter dated 16 October 2024.

¶ 5 · p. 3 · p. 4

03Law Applied

Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 provides the statutory basis for the writ appeal.

¶ 1 · p. 1

The Court relied on prior orders granting classified employees the minimum of the pay scale, without increments, from the date of classification, including Chandra Bhushan Prasad Dwivedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh (W.P. No. 12210/2017, order dated 17 August 2017), which relied on Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Devi and Others, (2017) 3 SCC 436, and the order in W.P. No. 27089/2022 dated 24 November 2022.

¶ 3 · pp. 1–3

The Court also directed consideration of the appellant’s claim in light of the Department’s letter dated 16 October 2024 and the order dated 9 October 2024 granting arrears to other employees.

¶ 4–5 · pp. 3–4

Provisions in the judgment · 1

M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 Section 2

04Reasoning

The Court considered the appellant similarly placed to employees who had obtained orders for arrears from their 2011 classification and noted that arrears had been granted to those employees for the period from July 2011 to June 2023.

¶ 3–5 · pp. 1–4

It also took account of the Department’s general letter concerning arrears for retired employees.

¶ 3–5 · pp. 1–4

On that basis, it held that the appellant’s claim warranted consideration and that the writ petition should not have been dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches.

¶ 3–5 · pp. 1–4