Similarly situated Time Keepers are entitled to parity with Amin pay scales and consequential benefits.

The petitioners were appointed as Time Keepers (Field Assistants) in the Work-Charged and Contingency Establishment of the Public Works Department, District Sidhi, and continued in service until retirement.

They were granted the pay scales of Rs. 825–1220, Rs. 2750–4400 and, subsequently, Rs. 5200–20,200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 1,800.

Relying on earlier decisions, including *A.L. Thakur v. State of M.P.*, *G.P. Shriwas v. State of M.P.*, and orders in W.P. Nos. 853/2016 and 1758/2016, they claimed the higher scales applicable to similarly situated employees—Rs. 950–1530 from 1 January 1990, Rs. 3050–4590 from 1 January 1996, and Rs. 5200–20,200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 1,900.

Their representations were not accepted, and the respondents rejected their claim by order dated 13 April 2018, which was challenged in the writ petition.

The State opposed the claim on the ground that Time Keepers/Field Assistants and Amins belonged to different establishments, were governed by different rules, and had different qualifications and duties.

1. Whether the petitioners, appointed as Time Keepers/Field Assistants in the Work-Charged Establishment, were entitled to the higher pay scales granted to similarly situated employees and to employees holding the post of Amin on the principle of pay parity and equal treatment.

2. Whether the respondents’ order dated 13 April 2018 denying the claimed pay-scale benefits was legally sustainable in light of the decisions in *A.L. Thakur*, *R.K. Lakhera*, *Eshwar Singh Rajpoot*, and connected proceedings.

3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to consequential monetary and retiral benefits from the applicable due dates.

The Court applied Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, particularly the principle that similarly situated employees in the same cadre cannot be subjected to discriminatory pay treatment.

It relied on *A.L. Thakur v. State of M.P.*, W.P. No. 16054/2003, which granted the relevant higher pay scales to similarly situated employees, and on *R.K. Lakhera v. State of M.P.*, whose relief was sustained in appellate and subsequent proceedings, including dismissal of the State’s SLP.

The Court also relied on the decision in *Eshwar Singh Rajpoot* and the Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 1130/2023 and connected appeals, which upheld the grant of equivalent pay-scale benefits and reinforced the requirement of parity among employees in the same cadre.

The contrary authorities cited by the State, including *State of M.P. v. Kiran Rangnekar* and *Babulal Pachori v. State of M.P.*, were not treated as controlling in view of the later decisions sustaining the entitlement of similarly situated employees.

The Court found that the controversy concerning the entitlement of Time Keepers/Field Assistants to the higher pay scales had already been conclusively considered in favour of similarly situated employees in *A.L. Thakur* and *R.K. Lakhera*, with those decisions having survived appellate and Supreme Court scrutiny.

It further noted that the same benefit had been granted to other employees in the relevant cadre, including pursuant to the decision in *Eshwar Singh Rajpoot* and the Division Bench ruling in W.A. No. 1130/2023.

Consequently, denying the petitioners identical treatment would result in two classes of employees within the same cadre receiving different pay scales without a legally sustainable basis.

The State’s distinction based on the separate establishment, recruitment rules, qualifications and duties of Amins was insufficient to displace the binding effect of the earlier parity decisions on the petitioners’ claim.

The impugned rejection order was therefore inconsistent with the requirement of equal treatment.

The Court quashed the respondents’ order dated 13 April 2018.

The Court directed the respondents to grant the petitioners the same pay-scale benefits already extended to similarly situated employees, from the applicable due dates, together with all consequential benefits granted in *A.L. Thakur*.

The directions were to be implemented within two months from receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.