Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Manyata Saroj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20932
1 WP-11506-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 9 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 11506 of 2022
SMT. MANYATA SAROJ
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Bhanu Prakash Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. G.K. Agrawal - GA for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 27.04.2022 (Annexure P/1), whereby his representation claiming benefit of increments by virtue of his permanent classification, has been declined by the respondents relying upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat vs. Sri Ashwini Ray & Ors. reported in (2017)3 SCC 436.
2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner was initially engaged on daily wages in the respondents department as Reference Clerk w.e.f. 09.09.1991. He filed an application under Section 31, 61 & 62 of M.P. Industrial Relation Act before Labour Court No.1, Gwalior claiming benefit of permanent classification on the post of Reference Clerk. The Labour Court vide order dated 18.09.1996 (Annexure P/3) accepted the petitioner's claim and directed for permanent classification on the post of Reference Clerk w.e.f. 27.09.1992. He was also directed to be paid difference of salary within a period of 90 days.
3. The respondents challenged the order passed by the Labour Court in Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 09/17/2025 01:37:49 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20932 2 WP-11506-2022 appeal before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court was initially passed an interim order on 27.03.1997 thereby staying the recovery of the amount of arrears subject to respondents complying with other directions of the Labour Court. Accordingly, vide order dated 15.01.1998 (Annexure P/5), the petitioner was permanently classified on the post of Reference Clerk with minimum of the pay scale plus the dearness allowance payable to him from time to time. The appeal filed by the respondents ultimately suffered dismissal by the Industrial Court vide order dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure P/6).
4. The respondents thereafter approached this Court by filing W.P. No.2390/2006. Before this Court, both the parties agreed that instead of permanent classification w.e.f. 29.07.1992, the petitioner be granted benefit of permanent classification w.e.f. 18.09.1996 that is from the order passed by the Labour Court. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been paid the benefit of minimum of the pay scale with dearness allowance, payable from time to time, of the post on which she was permanently classified w.e.f. 18.09.1996.
5. The petitioner thereafter raised her claim for payment of increment pursuant to his permanent classification. When her claim was not considered, she approached this Court by filing W.P. No.8554/2013. The petition was disposed of vide order dated 16.08.2021 (Annexure P/2), whereby the respondents were directed to take a decision on petitioner's claim. In compliance with the order of this Court, the impugned order has been passed on 27.04.2022, whereby the petitioner's claim for grant of increment has been rejected relying upon Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra) .
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the permanent classification by the order of Labour Court, the petitioner is entitled to Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 09/17/2025 01:37:49 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20932 3 WP-11506-2022 get the increments in the pay scale of the post of Reference Clerk, on which she was permanently classified. He also referred to the documents, whereby same benefit has been give to the similarly situated persons. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the memo dated 17.04.2018 (Annexure P/11), whereby the Chief Engineer has recommended for grant of benefit of increment on the post of Assistant Grade - III to the petitioner. In support of petitioner's claim for grant of benefit of increments, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Ram Prakash Sharma reported in 1989 JLJ 36, Engineer-In-Chief, P.H.E.D. Vs. Budha Rao Magarde, reported in 2001(2) JLJ 399 and the Apex Court judgment in the case o f Engineer-In-Chief, P.H.E.D. Vs. Budha Rao Magarde in Civil Appeal No.2451/2003. He also relied upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Rupram Yadav reported in 2012(I) MPWN 30 . He further submitted that the respondents have been treating the petitioner as a permanent employee, which is evident from the fact that regular deduction has been made towards GPF, she has been granted permission to purchase the house, she has also been conferred with the benefit of earned leave and the medical benefits as are available to permanent employees of the Government.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the law with regard to the benefits to be granted to permanently classified employees, has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh (Supra), wherein they have been held entitled to benefit of minimum of the pay scale only. As per the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has held that such persons are not entitled for the benefit of increment. He further submitted that the petitioner does not get any benefit pursuant to the recommendation made by the Chief Engineer, if the same is not permissible in law. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 09/17/2025 01:37:49 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20932 4 WP-11506-2022 Apex Court in the case of Vibhuti Shankar Pandey Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2023)3 SCC 639. He thus, prays for dismissal of the petitioner.
8. Considered the argument and perused the record.
9. The permanent classification of the petitioner is not disputed in this case. The issue for consideration is only about the benefit for which the petitioner is entitled to, on account of her permanent classification. The petitioner claims that, since she has been classified permanently, she is entitled to benefit of increments also in the pay scale of the post of Reference Clerk whereas the respondents have paid her only minimum of pay scale plus the admissible dearness allowance.
10. The issue was considered by Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra). After having dealt with the law and various authorities on the issue, the Apex Court held as under:
"24. It is, thus, somewhat puzzling as to whether the employee, on getting the designation of "permanent employee" can be treated as "regular" employee. This answer does not flow from the reading of the Standing Orders Act and Rules. In common parlance, normally, a person who is known as "permanent employee" would be treated as a regular employee but it does not appear to be exactly that kind of situation in the instant case when we find that merely after completing six months' service an employee gets right to be treated as "permanent employee". Moreover, this Court has, as would be noticed now, drawn a distinction between "permanent employee" and "regular employee".
25. We may mention, at this stage that this aspect has come up for consideration, in another context, in State of M.P. v. Dilip Singh Patel [State of M.P. v. Dilip Singh Patel, (2017) 3 SCC 455] . That was a case where similarly situated employees, who were classified as "permanent employees" under the Standing Orders Act, were given minimum of the pay scale attached to their posts. However, after the implementation of Sixth Pay Commission, benefits thereof were not Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 09/17/2025 01:37:49 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20932 5 WP-11506-2022 extended to these employees. The High Court held that they would be entitled to have their pay fixed as per the revised scales in accordance with the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission which were accepted qua regular employees. This Court, though, upheld the orders of the High Court giving them the benefit of revision of pay scale pertained to the Sixth Pay Commission, but at the same time made it clear that they would be entitled to minimum salary and allowances as per the said revised scales and would not be entitled to any increments. It was further held that such increments would be admissible only after regularisation of their services which regularisation was to take place as per the seniority list with due procedure. Following passage from the said judgment, which captures the aforesaid directions, is quoted hereunder:
"We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. It appears that the respondents earlier moved before the Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior by filing original applications such as OAs Nos. 648 of 1995, 293 of 1991, etc. In compliance with the orders passed in such original applications, the Chief Engineer, Yamuna Kachhar, Water Resources Department, Gwalior (M.P.) by orders issued in between April 2004 and June 2004 provided the minimum wages and allowances to the respondents without increment as per the Schedule of the pay scale from the date of the order of the Tribunal. It was further ordered that the regularisation of the daily-wage employees shall be made as per the seniority list with due procedure and the benefit of increment and other benefits can only be granted after the regularisation as per the Rules. It was ordered that the order of the Court for benefit of minimum wages and allowances shall be....
From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the respondents are entitled for minimum wages and allowance as per the fixed Schedule of the pay scale but without any increment. In such case, if the pay scale is revised from time to time including Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 09/17/2025 01:37:49 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20932
6 WP-11506-2022 the pay scale as revised pursuant to the Sixth Pay Commission, the respondents will be entitled to minimum wages and allowance as per the said revised scale without increment. Only after regularisation of their service, as per seniority and rules, they can claim the benefit of increment and other benefits."
26. From the aforesaid, it follows that though a "permanent employee"
has right to receive pay in the graded pay scale, at the same time, he would be getting only minimum of the said pay scale with no increments. It is only the regularisation in service which would entail grant of increments, etc. in the pay scale."
11. Thus, the issue has been answered in unambiguous terms that an employee who is permanently classified would be entitled to minimum of pay scale only and is not entitled to other benefits which are payable to a regular employee.
12. A single bench of this Court in the case of Ishrat Mohammad vs. State of M.P. & ors. in W.P. No.1482 of 2014 directed the respondents/State to confer benefit of pension on the employee on account of his permanent classification. The Bench issued following directions:
"7. As a consequence of aforesaid analysis, it is clear that the petitioner acquired the status of permanent employee before two years from the date of filing application under Section 31 of M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 before the Labour Court. From that date, if petitioner has rendered qualifying service, the respondents are bound to pay him pension and other retrial dues.
8. Resultantly, the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as permanent employee as per the order of (4) the Labour Court and if he is found eligible for grant of pension, pay him pension and other dues Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 09/17/2025 01:37:49 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20932 7 WP-11506-2022 within 90 days from the date of production of copy of this order."
13. This Order was challenged by State of M.P. by filing W.A. No.226/2026. The Division Bench set aside the order relying upon the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra). The Division Bench held as under:
"The issue raised by the parties is no longer res integra in view of the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra). The Supreme Court has held that mere classification under the standard standing orders of a permanent employee does not confer the status of a regularly appointed employee upon a person neither does it entitle him to claim the same benefit as a regular employee. It is also apparent that though the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra) also arises out of the same bunch of cases that were ultimately decided pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.A. No.110/2011, the same could not be placed before the learned Single Judge as the order in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra) had not been delivered at the time when the orders were passed by the learned Single Judge in the present case and the order passed in W.A. No.110/2011 was being followed.
In such circumstances, in view of the order passed by the Supreme court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra) which has practically over-ruled the order passed in W.A. No.110/2011 and has laid down the law that the respondent inspite of permanent classification under the standard standing orders does not acquire the status of a regular employee, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 24.11.2016 in W.P. No.1482/2014 is hereby set aside."
14. Thus, the issue, being raised by petitioner in this case, is no more res integra in view of aforesaid judgments of Apex Court and this Court.
15. The petitioner's counsel relied upon certain judgments in support of petitioner's claim. They need to be discussed now:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 09/17/2025 01:37:49 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20932 8 WP-11506-2022 i. The judgment rendered in the case of Ram Prakash Sharma (supra) was a case where the employee was claiming direction for permanent classification and invoked principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. This court upheld employee's claim for permanent classification and directed for payment of salary, including increments, to him.
ii. Likewise, in the case of Budha Rao Magarde (supra) , the Division Bench relied upon judgment of Ram Prakash Sharma and issued direction for payment of increments.
iii. Another Division Bench judgment relied upon by petitioner's counsel is rendered in the case of Rupram Yadav (supra) .
16. However, all these three judgments rendered in the case of Ram Prakash Sharma, Budha Rao Magarde & Rupram Yadav (supra), so far as they relates to direction for payment of increment, runs contrary to what has been held by Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra) and, therefore, cannot be relied upon as a precedent. It is worth here to mention that the case of Budha Rao Magarde travelled to Apex Court at the instance of State of M.P. and was subject matter of Civil Appeal No.2451 of 2003. The Civil Appeal was dismissed by Apex Court vide order, dated 26.03.2003, without discussing and laying down ratio on any legal point. Therefore, the Apex Court judgment passed in Budha Rao case is also no help to the petitioner.
17. The petitioner's counsel then relied upon Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of State of M.P. & ors. vs. Kumari Arati Saxena reported in (2020)18 SCC 601 . However, this judgment also do not help the petitioner in this case inasmuch as the issue regarding classification of employee was under
consideration before Apex Court and the issue as to what benefits would be Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 09/17/2025 01:37:49 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20932 9 WP-11506-2022 conferred on classified employee, was not under consideration. Thus, this is not an authority on the issue involved in this case.
18. The petitioner's counsel then contended that in similar circumstances, the benefit was given to certain employees. He has placed on record some such orders on record of writ petition. However, from reading these orders, it is found that the same were passed in proceedings for recovery of amount as a result of classification of employees. These are also, thus, not an authority on the issue involved in this case particularly in view of authoritative pronouncement by Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra) .
19. The petitioner's counsel next contended that the Chief Engineer of the respondent Department vide memo, dated 17.04.2018, (Annexure P/11) has recommended for grant of benefit of increment to the petitioner. On going through the said memo, it is gathered that the Chief Engineer has not discussed the provision under which the petitioner is entitled to such benefit. In absence of any law, the recommendation of Chief Engineer is also of no help to the petitioner.
20. In view of discussion made above, the claim made by petitioner is found to be impermissible in law. The petition is without any substance and is accordingly dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI) JUDGE bj/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 09/17/2025 01:37:49 PM