Time Keepers are entitled to pay scale parity with Amins based on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

The petitioners were appointed as Time Keepers in the Water Resources Department of Madhya Pradesh (e.g., Siyaraghulal appointed in 1971).

Upon retirement, they alleged they were wrongly placed in lower pay scales (Rs. 445-625, 925-1220, and 2750-4400) instead of the higher pay scales (Rs. 515-800, 950-1530, and 3050-4590) applicable to the post of "Amin".

The petitioners relied on the principle of "equal pay for equal work," asserting that the post of Time Keeper was re-designated as Field Assistant and carried duties equivalent to an Amin.

The Engineer-in-Chief rejected the claim via order dated 22.05.2018, contending that the Time Scale of Pay Scheme of 2016 was prospective and that Time Keepers (Work Charged Establishment) could not claim parity with Amins (Regular Establishment).

1. Whether the petitioners, appointed as Time Keepers, are entitled to the higher pay scales at par with the post of Amin based on the principle of parity and judicial precedents.

2. Whether the state can maintain two different pay scales for employees within the same cadre/similarly situated positions.

The court primarily applied the constitutional principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16 regarding "equal pay for equal work".

It relied on the precedent established in A.L. Thakur v. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 16054/2003), which affirmed the entitlement of Time Keepers to higher pay scales.

The court further followed the hierarchy of precedents, noting that the A.L. Thakur view was upheld by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court of India. It distinguished the State’s reliance on State of M.P. v. Kiran Rangnekar by referencing more recent Division Bench affirmations in W.A. No. 1130/2023.

The court observed that the controversy regarding the pay scale of Time Keepers had been effectively "put to rest" by the Supreme Court in the cases of R.K. Lakhera and Eshwar Singh Rajpoot.

The Court rejected the State's argument that differences in recruitment rules and establishment types (Regular vs. Work Charged) justified the pay disparity, noting that multiple benches had already granted the pay scale of Amin to Time Keepers.

The Court reasoned that to maintain consistency and fulfill constitutional mandates, the State cannot create "two sets of employees" within the same cadre receiving different pay for the same work.

Since the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1130/2023 upheld similar relief for other employees, the Court found no reason to depart from this established view.

It quashed the impugned order dated 22.05.2018. The respondents were directed to provide the petitioners with the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 from the due date, including all consequential benefits and arrears, within two months. The petitions were allowed to maintain parity with the A.L. Thakur judgment.