Stipend-based pay slabs of 70%, 80%, and 90% during probation violate the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work."

The petitioners, employees of the State of Madhya Pradesh, challenged a circular (dated 12/12/2019) issued by the General Administration Department (GAD) which mandated that newly appointed employees would receive only 70%, 80%, and 90% of the minimum pay scale during their first, second, and third years of probation, respectively.

The respondents began recovering amounts from salaries that had previously been paid in full or withheld portions of salaries in compliance with the circular.

The petitioners sought the quashing of these conditions in their appointment letters and a refund of all withheld amounts with interest.

1. Whether the GAD circular dated 12/12/2019, providing for a staggered/reduced pay scale during the probation period, is legally sustainable.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the full minimum pay scale (100%) and a refund of any amounts recovered or withheld under the said circular.

The court primarily applied the principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work', asserting that employees appointed through a proper channel to perform regular duties cannot be discriminated against based on the hiring agency or probation status.

The court relied on the precedent set in The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Dilliraj Bhilala (W.A. No. 1498/2024), which deprecated the GAD circular for lacking logical reasoning in granting reduced salaries when regular work is extracted.

The court also followed Indore Municipal Corporation v. Vinita Tiwari and Others (W.A. No. 2977/2025) and cited a similar view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Amrit Lal Sahu and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No. 6436/2021).

The court reasoned that there is no "reasonableness" or "logic" in creating two classes of probationers—those appointed via the MPPSC (who received full pay) and those appointed through other State agencies (who received the reduced slab rate).

Since the petitioners performed the same regular duties as other permanent employees, the restriction to a "stipend" of 70-90% was held to be discriminatory and a violation of the principle of equal pay.

The court noted that once an employee is appointed via the due process, they are entitled to the minimum pay scale of the post regardless of the probation period, as the work performed is identical to that of regularized staff.

The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned conditions in the appointment orders of the petitioners, and directed the respondents to return any amount recovered from the petitioners and pay the arrears for the period they were paid reduced salaries.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.