Case at a Glance
Since late 2019, Madhya Pradesh paid newly recruited Class III and Class IV employees only 70%, 80% and 90% of the minimum of the pay scale in the first three years of probation. A Division Bench of the MP High Court has struck down the Council of Ministers’ decision, the GAD circular of 12 December 2019 and all rule amendments implementing it, holding the arrangement violative of Articles 12 and 14 and discriminatory. Employees appointed after 25 November 2019 in the concerned departments must be paid full salary for work done during probation.
A Council of Ministers memo dated 25 November 2019 approved a three-year probation for direct recruits, and a General Administration Department circular dated 12 December 2019 provided that probationers would receive 70%, 80% and 90% of the minimum of the pay scale in their first, second and third years. Departments then amended their recruitment rules: the School Education (Teaching Cadre) Service Rules, 2018 were amended on 26 December 2019, Fundamental Rule 22-C and Rule 8(1) of the M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 on 22 February 2020, and the tribal welfare teaching cadre rules on 24 February 2020.
Class III and Class IV appointees whose pay was cut during probation challenged the scheme. They argued that employees doing full work must receive full pay, and that the arrangement discriminated against Class III and IV staff recruited through the Employee Selection Board compared to Class I and II officers recruited through the MPPSC. Earlier decisions, including State of M.P. v. Dilliraj Bhilala (W.A. No. 1498/2024, decided 28.04.2025) and Indore Municipal Corporation v. Vinita Tiwari (W.A. No. 2977/2025, decided 31.10.2025), had already ruled against the circular in individual cases.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can the State pay probationers in Class III and Class IV posts only 70%, 80% and 90% of the minimum pay scale while taking full work from them?
Probation Tests Suitability, Not a Licence to Cut Pay
Writing for the Bench, Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia accepted that probation is justified to evaluate suitability, but held that “payment of @ 70%, 80% and 90%” is “not at all justified” for Class III and IV employees. Since full work is being taken, the decision “is contrary to the principles of natural justice.” Salary must follow the pay scale prescribed in the recruitment rules, and there is no provision allowing a stipend in place of pay. The Court pointed out that even by way of punishment, pay cannot be reduced below the minimum of the scale; only increments can be withheld or an employee reverted.
Following Wasim Akram v. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 12125/2021, decided 06.01.2026), Dilliraj Bhilala and Vinita Tiwari, the Court concluded that the Council of Ministers’ decision is “unsustainable” and “violative of Article 12, 14 of Constitution of India,” and that the differential creates “discrimination against the Class-III and Class-IV employees.”
What the Court Actually Held
- Paying probationers 70%, 80% and 90% of the minimum pay scale while taking full work is unjustified and discriminatory against Class III and IV employees.
- The Council of Ministers’ decision of 25 November 2019 and every amendment made under it were struck down as violative of Articles 12 and 14.
- All the challenged rules and circulars prescribing staged probation pay were quashed.
- Employees of the concerned departments appointed after 25 November 2019 must be paid full salary for the work done during probation; the writ petitions were allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- The ruling affects a large number of teachers and other Class III and IV employees recruited in Madhya Pradesh since 2019.
- It affirms that probation cannot be used to pay less than the minimum of the sanctioned pay scale.
- It settles the issue at Division Bench level after several individual rulings against the 2019 circular.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Employees
- If you were appointed after 25 November 2019 and paid reduced probation salary, this judgment directs full salary for work done during probation.
- Keep your appointment order, pay slips and probation records ready to claim the difference.
For Counsel
- Rely on this Division Bench ruling, Dilliraj Bhilala and Vinita Tiwari in pending claims for differential pay.
- Note that the judgment does not itself fix a deadline or method for arrears; follow up on implementation through representations or fresh petitions.
Key Takeaways
- Staged 70/80/90% probation pay in MP has been struck down.
- The 25 November 2019 Council of Ministers decision and all amendments under it are quashed.
- Full salary is payable for work done during probation to appointees after 25 November 2019.
- Probation can test suitability but cannot reduce pay below the minimum of the scale.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the MP High Court strike down?
The Council of Ministers’ decision of 25 November 2019, the GAD circular of 12 December 2019 and all rules and amendments prescribing 70%, 80% and 90% pay during probation.
Who benefits from the judgment?
Employees of the concerned departments appointed after 25 November 2019, who are to be paid full salary for work done during probation.
Does the judgment fix a deadline for paying arrears?
No. The operative order directs full salary for work done during probation but does not specify an arrears calculation or a payment deadline.
Conclusion
The Division Bench has put a constitutional limit on cost-cutting through probation. A probationer may be watched, assessed and even discharged, but if the State takes full work, it must pay at least the minimum of the scale it advertised.
Practical takeaway: Employees appointed in MP after 25 November 2019 who received reduced probation pay should apply to their departments for the differential, citing this judgment.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com