Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has struck down the rules and circulars of the State Government prescribing payment of 70%, 80% and 90% of the minimum pay scale for 1st, 2nd and 3rd years, respectively, during the probation period. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 359]Directing the State Government to grant full salary to the aggrieved employees for the work done in the probation period, the Division Bench...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has struck down the rules and circulars of the State Government prescribing payment of 70%, 80% and 90% of the minimum pay scale for 1st, 2nd and 3rd years, respectively, during the probation period. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 359]

Directing the State Government to grant full salary to the aggrieved employees for the work done in the probation period, the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal observed:

"The aforesaid decision does not justify the grant of reduced pay scale during the probation period to the duly selected candidate against the vacant post. The aforesaid decision is contrary to the principles of natural justice that when 100% work is being taken from an employee, then why should 100% salary not be paid". 

The bench further highlighted;

"During the probation period also, he is required to perform his duties along with a regular confirmed employee. Keeping an employee on probation initially for 2-3 years is justified in order to evaluate his work for the purpose of confirmation, but payment of @ 70%, 80% and 90% of the minimum pay scale for 1st, 2nd and 3rd years respectively during the probation period is not at all justified, only in respect of Class-III and ClassIV employees. Such a harsh condition is not applicable for recruitment/appointment to the Class-I and Class-II Officers". 

The primary dispute in the said petitions began from a meeting of the Council of Ministers of November 25, 2019, wherein it was decided that appointment by direct recruitment shall be kept on 3-year probation, granting then 7-80-90% of the minimum pay scale for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd years, respectively.

Thereafter, a circular was issued on December 26, 2019 wherein the conditions of the pay scale during the probation period were amended. Thereafter, the respondents had initiated recovery from the monthly salary by the General Administration Department. 

The circular and the recovery were challenged earlier before the High Court in Wasim Akram & others v State of M.P [W.P No. 12125/2021] and State of Madhya Pradesh v Dilliraj Bhilala [W.A. No.1498/2024], wherein the court set aside the recovery and struck down the circular, terming it illogical. 

Following this, another case was filed in the High Court, Indore Municipal Corporation v Vinita Tiwari W.A. No.2977/2025 wherein the court quashed the recovery and directed the government to pay 100% salary during the probation period and to return any amount recovered from employees. 

In the present petitions, the court has to examine the validity of the amendment brought in the Fundamental Rules through the notification of February 22, 2020, by substituting Rule 22(c) sub-rule (1), stating 'selected candidate through MP PSC will get minimum of pay scale during probation period and service in which the MP PSC does not give recommendation those selected government employee shall be kept in 3 years probation and shall get stipend during three years of probation @ 70%, 80% and 90% of minimum pay scale for 1st, 2nd and 3rd years respectively and during probation period along with stipend, they would get other allowances as government employee'.

The court noted that a similar arrangement was made by the December 12, 2019 circular issued by the General Administration Department for appointment of Class 3 and 4 employees under Rule 8 of MP Civil Services Rules, 1961. 

The bench noted that the same recruitment rules of keeping the employees on 3 years' probation and granting them part salaries are not applied to Class I and II employees. This different set of rules for different classes of employees creates two categories. 

The bench, in reference to Class III and IV employees, noted,

"If 100% work is being taken from them, then there cannot be justification for payment @ 70%, 80% and 90% of minimum pay scale for 1st, 2nd and 3rd years respectively during the probation period. Therefore, this is nothing but discrimination against the Class-III and Class-IV employees. Even it is not a policy of the State Government that after confirmation, they would be paid arrears @ 30%, 20% and 10% of the minimum pay scale, which was withheld for 1st, 2nd and 3rd years respectively during the probation period". 

Highlighting that the employee is liable to get salary based on the prescribed pay scale in recruitment rules, the bench held that payment of salary lower than the prescribed rules can only be given by way of punishment upon proven misconduct. There is no possibility of recovery of deduction permissible from salary without valid justification. 

The court held that "Thus, there is no reason to give a impression to the employees working on probation period that they are being paid less pay because they are not found suitable for the post or they are doing less work than a regular employee; therefore, such a decision taken by the Ministers of Council circulated vide memo dated 25th November, 2019 (Annexure R-4) is unsustainable, violative of Article 12, 14 of Constitution of India, hence the same is being struck down". 

Thus, the bench disposed of the petitions and set aside the impugned circulars and orders. 

Case Title: Rahul Singh Kachhwah v State of MP, WP-14411-2020

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 359

For Petitioner in WP 14411/2020: Advocate Vijay Kumar Shukla

For Petitioner in WP 25316/2025: Senior Advocate Kailash Chandra Ghildiyal with Advocate Warija Ghildiyal

For Petitioner in WP 50654/2025: Advocates Rahul Diwaker, Aman Pandey and Shubham Rai 

For Petitioners in WP 1470/2026, WP 2848/2026, WP 2862/2026, WP 3326/2026, WP 3761/2026: Advocate Ishan Soni

For Petitioner in WP 1897/2026: Advocate Sitendra Kumar Vishkarma

For Petitioner in WP 3359/2026: Advocates Amit Shukla and Sitendra Kumar Vishkarma

For Petitioner in WP 4772/2026: Advocates Anshul Tiwari and Abhishek Pandey

For Petitioner in WP 24056/2026: Advocate Rahul Diwaker

For the State: Additional Advocate General Bramhadatt Singh

Click here to read/download the Order

Tags: