### Permanently classified employees are entitled to the minimum of the graded pay scale without increments.

The petitioner was appointed as a daily wage employee in March 1990.

On 02.03.2004, pursuant to a court order, he was classified as a "permanent" employee on the post of Sthal Sahayak (Spot Assistant), a Class-III post.

The respondents never extended the financial benefits of this classification and instead later regularized him as a "Helper" (a Class-IV post) under the 07.10.2016 Policy, paying him at a lower semi-skilled rate.

The petitioner challenged this, seeking the difference of arrears and the pay scale attached to the Class-III post from the date of his classification.

The State contended that classification is a temporary arrangement and does not equate to a regular appointment on merit.

1. Whether an employee classified as "permanent" is entitled to the pay scale of the post on which they were classified.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the minimum of the pay scale of the Class-III post (Sthal Sahayak) from the date of his classification despite subsequent regularization in a Class-IV post.

Legal principles established by the Supreme Court in Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray (2017) 3 SCC 436.

The precedent distinguishes between "permanent" and "regular" employees, holding that while a "permanent" employee is not "regularized" and thus not entitled to increments, they possess a legal right to receive the minimum of the graded pay scale (as revised from time to time) for the post on which they are classified.

The court found that the petitioner’s status as a permanently classified employee on a Class-III post since 02.03.2004 was undisputed and had previously been upheld by the High Court.

Applying the Ram Naresh Rawat doctrine, the court reasoned that the petitioner acquired a vested right to the minimum of the pay scale of Sthal Sahayak (Spot Assistant) upon classification.

The State’s argument—that the petitioner was only entitled to Class-IV benefits because he was never "regularly" appointed through a merit-based process—was rejected because the claim was for the benefits of "classification," not "regularization".

The court determined that the petitioner must be paid the difference between what he received as a daily wager/Sthai Karmi and the minimum of the Class-III pay scale for the period between his classification and his subsequent status change under the 2016 Circular.

The respondents were directed to: (i) confer the benefit of the minimum of the pay scale for the post of Sthal Sahayak (Class-III) to the petitioner from 02.03.2004 until the date he was classified as Sthai Karmi under the 07.10.2016 Circular; and (ii) comply within three months, failing which the arrears will carry 6% interest per annum.