The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that the surviving spouse of a permanently classified daily wager is entitled to the minimum pay scale benefits, even if the employee never claimed them during his lifetime. This ruling clarifies that posthumous claims by dependents are not barred by the absence of prior assertion, provided the employee’s classification was lawful and the benefit is statutorily linked to service rendered.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Smt. Munni Bai Gaud, seeks the minimum of the pay scale benefits for the period her husband, Shri Chandan Singh Gaud, served as a permanently classified Shramik in the Water Resources Department, Gwalior. He was engaged as a daily wager on 01.08.1978 and was permanently classified on 25.10.2005. He died on 14.10.2016, before the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray & Ors. (2017) 3 SCC 436, which held that permanently classified employees are entitled to the minimum pay scale of their post.
Procedural History
- 2005: Husband permanently classified as Shramik
- 2016: Husband died without claiming pay scale benefits
- 2017: Supreme Court delivered Ram Naresh Rawat judgment
- 2021: Petitioner filed W.P. No. 4953/2021; Court directed authorities to consider claim in light of Ram Naresh Rawat
- 2021: Respondents cancelled permanent classification order dated 27.09.2021 without notice or hearing
- 2022: Executive Engineer rejected petitioner’s claim via impugned order dated 10.01.2022
- 2022: Petitioner filed present writ petition
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks: (1) setting aside of the impugned order dated 10.01.2022; (2) grant of minimum pay scale benefits from 25.10.2005 to 14.10.2016; (3) payment of arrears; and (4) recognition of her entitlement as the legal heir.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the surviving spouse of a permanently classified employee is entitled to minimum pay scale benefits under Ram Naresh Rawat when the employee died before the judgment was delivered and never claimed the benefit during his lifetime.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the husband’s permanent classification was lawful and subsisting at the time of death. The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ram Naresh Rawat recognized a substantive right to minimum pay scale, which vests upon classification and continues posthumously for dependents. The cancellation of classification after death, without notice or hearing, violated principles of natural justice. The delay in filing was excusable since the legal right only crystallized after the Ram Naresh Rawat judgment.
For the Respondent
The State contended that no claim was made during the employee’s lifetime, and therefore, no right accrued. It further argued that the permanent classification order had been lawfully cancelled on 27.09.2021, rendering the claim void. The petitioner’s delay in approaching the Court was also urged as a bar to relief.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the right established in Ram Naresh Rawat. It held that the entitlement to minimum pay scale is not a discretionary benefit but a statutory right flowing from the fact of permanent classification. The judgment did not create a new right but recognized an existing one under service rules.
"The benefit is not contingent upon the employee having made a claim during his lifetime; it is a consequence of his status as a permanently classified employee."
The Court further found the cancellation of the permanent classification order dated 27.09.2021 to be illegal and unsustainable. No such order was produced on record, and even if it existed, cancellation after death - without affording the widow an opportunity of hearing - violates Article 14 and Article 21. The Court relied on its own precedent in Kamta Prasad v. State of M.P., which held that posthumous cancellation of service benefits is impermissible.
The Court also rejected the argument of inordinate delay, noting that the legal basis for the claim only emerged after the Ram Naresh Rawat judgment in December 2016, and the petitioner acted promptly thereafter.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court set aside the impugned order dated 10.01.2022 and held that the widow is entitled to the minimum pay scale benefits for the period her husband served as a permanently classified employee. The Court directed that the relief granted in Thakur Das Rajput v. State of M.P. shall apply mutatis mutandis.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Posthumous Claims Are Valid When Right Vests During Service
- Practitioners must now argue that entitlement to pay scale benefits vests upon permanent classification, not upon claim submission
- Surviving spouses can claim arrears even if the employee died before a relevant judgment was delivered
- Delay is not fatal if the legal basis for the claim emerged posthumously
Cancellation of Service Status After Death Is Illegal
- Any order cancelling permanent classification after an employee’s death is void ab initio
- Such cancellations violate natural justice and procedural fairness under Article 21
- Authorities must produce cancellation orders on record; failure renders them non-existent in law
Precedent Binding Across Similar Cases
- The Court’s directive to apply Thakur Das Rajput mutatis mutandis establishes a uniform standard for all similarly situated widows
- Government departments must proactively identify and settle such claims without waiting for litigation
- Legal officers should advise clients to file claims within six months of a relevant judgment, even if the employee is deceased
