The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified a critical principle in public employment law: employees classified under a government pay scheme are entitled only to the pay scale assigned to their specific category, not the minimum scale of the post they actually performed. This ruling resolves longstanding confusion among state employees and administrative authorities regarding retroactive pay claims following regularization.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, former daily wage workers in the State of Madhya Pradesh, were classified as permanent employees under the State’s policy dated 07.10.2016. This policy categorized them into skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled groups, each with distinct pay scales. Despite performing duties equivalent to permanent employees entitled to a higher minimum pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with a grade pay of Rs. 1900, the petitioners were placed in lower pay bands under the 2016 scheme. They sought arrears from the date of their classification and the benefit of the higher minimum scale.
Procedural History
- 2011: Petitioners were engaged as daily wage workers; no formal regularization occurred.
- 2016: State issued policy classifying daily wage workers into three categories with fixed pay scales.
- 2025: Petitioners filed writ petition seeking minimum pay scale and arrears from date of classification.
- 2024: A coordinate bench in Chetan Lal Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh had previously rejected similar claims, holding that entitlement flows from categorization, not duty performance.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the State to:
- Grant them the minimum pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with grade pay Rs. 1900 from the date of classification
- Pay arrears of salary from the date of classification until implementation of the 2016 policy
- Extend all consequential benefits including pension and increments
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether employees classified under a government pay scheme are entitled to the minimum pay scale of the post they performed, or whether their entitlement is strictly limited to the pay scale assigned to their designated category under the regularization policy.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray and Chandra Bhushan Prasad Dwivedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, arguing that once classified as permanent employees, they were entitled to the minimum pay scale of the post they actually discharged, irrespective of their categorized band. They contended that denying them the higher scale violated the principle of equal pay for equal work under Article 14 and Article 39(d) of the Constitution.
For the Respondent/State
The State countered that the 2016 policy was a comprehensive, self-contained scheme designed to regularize daily wage workers without disrupting existing pay structures. It cited Uma Devi v. State of Karnataka to emphasize that regularization under such schemes cannot override the terms of the policy itself. The State argued that allowing claims based on actual duties would undermine the policy’s categorization framework and create fiscal chaos.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the 2016 policy and its relationship with prior judicial pronouncements. It noted that the policy was not a mere regularization order but a structured classification system with defined pay bands. The Court distinguished Ram Naresh Rawat and Chandra Bhushan Prasad Dwivedi, observing that in those cases, employees were directly regularized into specific posts without being assigned to a multi-tiered category system. Here, the petitioners were explicitly placed into categories with predetermined scales.
"The categorisation of the employees under the specific category is only for the purpose to claim wages prevailing at the relevant point of time of the said category, but not the scale of the post on which they were working."
The Court held that the policy’s intent was to provide a uniform, non-discriminatory framework for regularization, not to grant automatic upward mobility to the highest minimum scale. It affirmed that entitlement to pay scale is determined by the category assigned under the policy, not by the nature of duties performed. However, the Court recognized that petitioners were entitled to arrears from the date of classification until the policy’s implementation, as held in Ram Naresh Rawat.
The Verdict
The petitioners’ claim for the minimum pay scale of the post they performed was dismissed. The Court held that entitlement to pay scale is confined to the category assigned under the 2016 policy, but directed the State to consider their claim for arrears from the date of classification until the policy’s implementation, subject to a fresh representation.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Pay Scale Entitlement Is Category-Specific
- Practitioners must now argue that pay scale entitlement under regularization schemes is tied to the category assigned, not the actual duties performed
- Claims based on "equal pay for equal work" must be framed within the confines of the policy’s classification structure
- Any deviation from the assigned category requires proof of administrative error or misclassification
Arrears Claims Remain Viable
- Employees are still entitled to arrears from the date of classification until the policy benefit was applied
- This creates a two-stage claim: (1) arrears for delay in implementing the policy, (2) ongoing pay under the assigned category
- Practitioners should file separate representations for arrears, supported by service records and classification orders
Policy-Based Regularization Overrides Judicial Precedents on Post-Specific Pay
- Uma Devi and its progeny establish that government schemes override judicial mandates for regularization
- Courts will not rewrite policy terms, even if they appear less favorable to employees
- Lawyers must carefully analyze the language of regularization policies before filing writ petitions
