The Madhya Pradesh High Court has struck down the state's system under which certain newly appointed government employees were paid 70%, 80% and 90% of the minimum pay scale during the first three years of probation.

The court has held that employees performing the duties attached to their posts cannot be denied the applicable minimum pay merely because they are on probation. The ruling reinforces the principle of “equal pay for equal work” in cases covered by the litigation.

What was the 70-80-90% system?

Under a General Administration Department memorandum issued in December 2019, certain employees recruited to posts outside the MPPSC examination system were placed on a three-year probationary pay structure.

They were paid:

• 70% of the minimum pay scale in the first year
• 80% in the second year
• 90% in the third year

Full salary became payable after the applicable probationary period.

The arrangement had been challenged by employees before the High Court.

Court finds unequal treatment

The court's reasoning centred on the fact that employees appointed through proper recruitment procedures were performing the duties attached to their posts.

The judgment held that there was no reasonable basis for creating different classes of probationers and paying some employees less despite them performing the same work.

The court relied on earlier decisions in which the 70-80-90% arrangement had been rejected.

Arrears also become important

The ruling has financial implications for employees who received reduced pay during probation.

In one recent order, the High Court directed that employees who had not received full salary during probation should be paid the difference. In another case, the court directed payment of the three-year salary difference within 60 days.

This means affected employees may become eligible for arrears, subject to the precise applicability of the relevant judgment and their individual service circumstances.

Earlier cases had challenged the policy

The issue has been repeatedly litigated before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

In July 2026, the court again relied on its earlier decision in the Vinita Tiwari case, holding that employees were entitled to the minimum applicable pay scale rather than the reduced 70%, 80% and 90% payments.

Similar orders have subsequently been passed in several individual cases.

What employees should understand

The ruling is significant for government employees appointed under the rules covered by the litigation. However, it should not automatically be interpreted as meaning that every probationer in every government department will receive an identical arrears payment.

The applicability of the judgment depends on the employee's recruitment route, appointment conditions, department and the specific court order governing the case.