The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that permanently classified employees are legally entitled to the minimum revised pay scale under the 7th Pay Commission, effective from 01/01/2016, reinforcing the principle of pay parity with regular government servants. This judgment resolves a long-standing ambiguity in state service jurisprudence and sets a binding precedent for similar claims across Madhya Pradesh.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Birbal Kushwaha, is a permanently classified employee of the State of Madhya Pradesh. He seeks the extension of the revised pay scale under the 7th Pay Commission recommendations, effective from 01/01/2016, which the State has refused to grant on the ground that no formal sanction has been issued for such benefit to permanently classified employees.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was permanently classified in a government post, with service tenure extending beyond the probationary period
- The benefit of the minimum pay scale under the 6th Pay Commission had already been extended to him
- The State acknowledges his status as a permanently classified employee but contends that the 7th Pay Commission benefits have not been formally sanctioned for this category
- No dispute exists regarding the petitioner’s classification or the applicability of the 7th Pay Commission to regular government employees
- The petitioner has not been granted any revision in pay despite the implementation of the 7th Pay Commission for regular employees since 01/01/2016
Procedural History
- 2026: Writ Petition No. 7568 of 2026 filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior
- 31.03.2026: Judgment delivered by Hon’ble Justice Ashish Shroti
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to the State to extend the benefit of the minimum revised pay scale under the 7th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01/01/2016, along with consequential arrears and interest.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether permanently classified employees are entitled to the minimum revised pay scale under the 7th Pay Commission, on the same terms as regular government employees, despite the absence of a specific government order extending such benefit.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel, Shri Bhanu Prakash Singh, relied on the binding precedent of Ram Naresh Rawat v. Sri Ashwini Ray & Ors. (2017) 3 SCC 436, which held that permanently classified employees are entitled to the minimum pay scale of their post at par with regular government employees. He further cited Gulab Prasad Tiwari & Others v. State of M.P. & Others (W.P. No. 11122/2018), where this Court had already held that the 7th Pay Commission benefits must extend to permanently classified employees. He argued that the State’s inaction cannot deprive employees of a statutory and constitutional right to pay parity.
For the Respondent
The learned Government Advocate, Shri Sohit Mishra, conceded that the petitioner is a permanently classified employee but contended that the benefit of the 7th Pay Commission has not been sanctioned by the State Government for this category. He argued that without a formal policy or order, no legal obligation arises to extend the benefit, and that the matter falls within the realm of executive discretion.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the settled legal position laid down in Ram Naresh Rawat v. Sri Ashwini Ray & Ors., where the Supreme Court held that permanently classified employees are entitled to the minimum pay scale of the post on which they are classified, on par with regular government employees. The Court observed that this principle is not contingent upon a separate government order but flows from the very nature of permanent classification and the doctrine of equal pay for equal work under Article 14 of the Constitution.
"An employee, permanently classified, is entitled to minimum of the pay scale of the post on which he is classified at par with the regular Govt. employees. Thus, as and when the revision of the pay scale takes place, the benefit of the same is to be granted to the permanently classified employees also."
The Court further relied on its own earlier decision in Gulab Prasad Tiwari, which had squarely addressed the applicability of the 7th Pay Commission to permanently classified employees and held that such employees cannot be excluded from pay revision merely due to administrative delay or non-issuance of a specific order. The Court emphasized that the State’s failure to extend the benefit does not negate the legal entitlement, and that the principle of equity and non-discrimination must prevail.
The Court rejected the State’s argument that executive discretion permits withholding of pay revision, noting that such discretion cannot override a judicially recognized right grounded in constitutional equality.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court directed the State of Madhya Pradesh to extend the benefit of the minimum revised pay scale under the 7th Pay Commission to the petitioner w.e.f. 01/01/2016. The State was ordered to compute and pay all consequential arrears within 90 days from the date of submission of the certified copy of this order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Pay Parity Is Not Discretionary
- Practitioners representing permanently classified employees may now invoke Ram Naresh Rawat and Gulab Prasad Tiwari to claim 7th Pay Commission benefits without waiting for a specific government order
- Administrative silence or non-issuance of orders cannot be used to deny statutory or constitutional entitlements
Retroactive Pay Arrears Are Mandatory
- Claims for pay revision under the 7th Pay Commission must be granted with effect from 01/01/2016, the effective date of implementation for regular employees
- Delay in implementation by the State does not extinguish the right to arrears
Classification Determines Entitlement, Not Appointment Type
- The legal status of "permanently classified" is functionally equivalent to "regular" for pay revision purposes
- Any distinction based on appointment nomenclature (contractual, temporary, classified) is legally unsustainable if the employee holds a permanent post
