ORDER : VIVEK RUSIA, J. 1. The State of Madhya Pradesh has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 02.03.2015 passed by the Labour Court in case No.112/2014 ID by which the petitioners-department was directed to pay the amount of Rs.5,88,637/- to the respondent under the head of difference of salary for the period 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2013 within a period of sixty days. 2. The respondent has already been classified as permanent employee under the MP Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employee Rules 1997 by the Labour Court. Vide order dated 02.03.2015, the petitioners have been directed by the Labour Court to pay the difference of salary to the respondent. This issue raised in this petition has been decided by the single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.7791/2015 vide order dated 29.06.2016. Order dated 29.06.2016 reads as under: W.P. No. 7791/2015 29/06/2016 Parties through their counsel. The petitioner / State of M.P. before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the award dated 04/03/2015 passed by the Labour Court, Ujjain on an application filed by the respondent/workman under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The fact of the case reveals that in the year 2004, State of M.P. has conferred permanent status upon the workman, however, he was not granted wages after conferral of the permanent statues. The workman has preferred an application under section 33-(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming difference of salary w.e.f 01.01.2002 to 29/02/2012 and the labour Court has allowed the application preferred by the workman. Learned counsel for the petitioner/State has placed heavy reliance upon the order delivered by Single Judge of this Court in W.P. no. 1690/2005 decided on 22.02.2007 ( Executive Engineer PWD v. Radhey Shyam ) and his contention is that in the aforesaid judgment, the workman is not entitled for arrears of salary. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/workman has placed reliance upon the recent order passed by this Court in W.P. no. 8208/2014 decided on 09/04/2015 ( State of M.P and another v. Gokul Singh ). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/workman has placed reliance upon the recent order passed by this Court in W.P. no. 8208/2014 decided on 09/04/2015 ( State of M.P and another v. Gokul Singh ). This Court in the aforesaid case has held as under :- "In the present case, the petitioners/State has admitted in the writ petition that in exercise of power conferred under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules 1963, an order was passed on 9.7.2002 conferring the permanent status upon the respondent. The order conferring the permanent status has never been withdrawn. This court in one such identical case i.e in the case of State of M.P. and another v. Sunil Motiam Yadav and others, WP No. 5990/2011 decided on 05.04.2013 in para-6 to 8 has held as under:- "6. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the workmen in question though daily wagers have served 20 years. The Labour Court after appreciation of evidence on record and keeping in view the Rules of 1963 has directed for classification of the workmen as permanent employee. Not only this, the workmen by virtue of the Rules of 1963 are also entitled for a regular pay scale keeping in view the judgment delivered in the case of Rupram Yadav (supra). It has been also pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-workmen that in an identical matter the Division Bench of this Court i. e. in the case of Sub Divisional Officer Choral Canal & Ors. v. Nanhelal Yadav (W.P. No.3094/2009) in similar circumstances has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh upholding the award passed by the Labour Court. The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case in paragraph 8, 9, 10 has held as under :- "8. Without going into much factual details, we find that direction to give benefit to respondent as permanent employee w.e.f. 17.11.2002 can not be faulted with for the simple reason that the State itself has passed an order on 17.11.2002 (Annexure-P/3 of Labour Court record) in favour of respondent regularizing him in service w.e.f. 17.11.2002. 9. When there is an order to this effect passed by the State then in such event, the respondent (employee) has every right to claim all consequential benefits flowing from such order as are permissible in Rules. 10. 9. When there is an order to this effect passed by the State then in such event, the respondent (employee) has every right to claim all consequential benefits flowing from such order as are permissible in Rules. 10. In view of foregoing discussion, which alone is necessary, we do not find any good ground to deny the benefit granted by Labour Court to respondent w.e.f. 17.11.2002. It is just and proper calling for no interference. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner was also unable to point out any infirmity in the impugned award." 7. It has also been pointed out that a SLP preferred before the Apex Court by the State Government in the same case, has been dismissed on 23.2.11. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 8. The order writ petition is also dismissed." This court has upheld the award passed by the Labour Court by which identically placed persons/daily wagers have been granted the benefit of regular pay scale attached to the post. Keeping in view the aforesaid, if an employee has been conferred upon the permanent status, is also entitled for regular pay scale of the post on which he was conferred the permanent status by the State Government. The labour Court based upon an order of the State Government, has granted difference of salary and therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court granting the difference of salary to the sole respondent. Resultantly, the present writ petition is dismissed" And his contention is that the Labour Court was justified in allowing the application claiming difference of salary. It is also pertinent to note that Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 27/08/2014 passed in SLP no. 2057-2058/2014 ( State of M.P. and Ors v. Dilip Singh Patel and ors has passed the following order : "These appeals have been preferred by appellants-State of Madhya Pradesh & ors. against the judgment and order dated 30th March, 2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Writ Appeal No.163 of 2012 and order dated 2nd November, 2012 passed in Review Petition No.148 of 2012. against the judgment and order dated 30th March, 2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Writ Appeal No.163 of 2012 and order dated 2nd November, 2012 passed in Review Petition No.148 of 2012. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the order dated 14th February, 2012 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No.5212 of 2009(s) and the review petition against the said order was dismissed. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: The respondents-employees were classified as permanent employees as per the statutory provisions of M.P. Standing Standards Orders. However, they were not granted the benefit of Sixth Pay Commission. Learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and judgment of the High Court in "Engineering-in-Chief, P.H.E.D. and Others v. Budha Rao Magarde and Others', 2002(1)M.P.L.J. 385 held that the respondents-employees are eligible to receive revised scale after their classification. This order was affirmed by Division Bench. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the respondents who were daily wage employees were classified as permanent employees are not entitled for revised scale of pay in terms of Sixth Pay Commission. Per contra, according to learned counsel for the respondents, the respondents were classified as permanent employees as per the statutory provision of the M.P. Standing Standards Orders are entitled for the revised scale of pay. He further submits that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are already receiving regular scale of pay. We have heard 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 O.A.No.648 of 1995, O.A.No.293 of 1991 etc. In compliance of 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 regularization of the daily wages 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 regularization as per the Rules. It was further ordered that the regularization of the daily wages 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 regularization as per the Rules. It was ordered that the order of the Court for benefit of minimum wages and allowance shall be effected from the issuance of those orders. 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 the pay scale as revised pursuant to Sixth Pay Commission, the respondents will be entitled to minimum wages and allowance as per said revised scale without increment. Only after regularization of their service, as per seniority and rules, they can claim the benefit of increment and other benefits. In view of aforesaid observations, while we are not inclined to interfere with the substantive part of the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge or the Division Bench or the order passed in Review Application, we modify the order dated 14th February, 2012 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 5212 of 2009(s) as to the extent above. The benefits to which the respondents are entitled as per the observation as made above, if not paid be paid within two months. Those who are appointed on the regular pay scale, they will be entitled to corresponding pay scale and other benefits. The appeals stand disposed of." This Court, keeping in view the aforesaid judgment delivered in an identical case, does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court in the matter. Resultantly, admission is declined. 3. That the petitioners-State has preferred the writ appeal No.137/2014 before the Division Bench against order dated 04.09.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.10447/2013 (State of Madhya Pradesh v. Lakhan Singh) and vide order dated 05.05.2014, the writ appeal has also been dismissed. Order dated 05.05.2014 passed in Writ Appeal No.05.05.2014 reads as under: Writ Appeal No.137/2014 The basic issue decided and dealt with by the learned Single Judge was regarding regular pay scale payable to the employees, who were classified as permanent based upon the order passed by the Labour Court, Ujjain dated 02nd April 2013. Order dated 05.05.2014 passed in Writ Appeal No.05.05.2014 reads as under: Writ Appeal No.137/2014 The basic issue decided and dealt with by the learned Single Judge was regarding regular pay scale payable to the employees, who were classified as permanent based upon the order passed by the Labour Court, Ujjain dated 02nd April 2013. Learned Single Judge relying upon the judgment in the case of Rupram Yadav v. State of MP and Others reported in 2010 (3) MPLJ 350 observed that the order of the Labour Court does not warrant any interference. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that SLP was filed and in Rupram's Case (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has admitted the SLP, however, no order has been passed. We may reiterate the observations made in this case by the Learned Single Judge which reads as follows: "The record of the case reveals that the sole respondent was working as a daily wager under the Water Resources Department of State of Madhya Pradesh and by order dated 09.07.2002 he was classified as permanent. The impugned award dated 26.09.2012 further reveals that the workmen in question has preferred a reference and the same was registered as Case No.32/2007 IDR and the Labour Court vide award dated 21.10.2011 has directed the respondents therein to regularize the petitioner and to grant regular pay-scale. The writ petition does not disclose that the aforesaid award has been set aside by any higher Court at any point of time. Meaning thereby, the award dated 21.10.2011 is still in existence. Not only this, the Labour Court after taking into account the order classifying the workmen as permanent dated 09.07.2002 and the award delivered earlier dated 21.10.2011 has directed the department to pay the difference of pay to the workmen in question. The order classifying the workmen reveals that the same has been passed under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963. The order classifying the workmen reveals that the same has been passed under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963. The same controversy came up before this Court in the case of Rupram Yadav v. State of MP and Others reported in 2010 (3) MPLJ 350 and this court while dealing with the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 has held that once an employee has been classified as a permanent employee, permanent status has been accorded upon him, in accordance with the provisions of the standard standing orders formulated under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 and he is entitled for regular pay-scale attached to the post. This Court in the aforesaid case in paragraphs 2 to 5 held as under:- "2. Petitioner has been classified as a permanent driver in accordance to the provisions of the Standard Standing Orders formulated under the MP Employment Standing Order Act, petitioner claims regular pay-scale attached to the post of driver. 3. Claim made by the petitioner is based on the principles laid down by this Court in the case of State of MP v. Hariram and Others 2008(3) MPLJ 517 and an earlier judgment in the case of Engineer-in-Chief, PHED and Others, 2002 (1) MPLJ 385 in the cases referred to herein, particularly in the case of Hariram (supra) in para 10 and 12 after taking note of various judgments of this court, so also of the Supreme Court, particularly, the law laid down in the case of Budha Rao (supra), it has been held by a bench of this court that classification of an employee entitles to get the pay-scale to the post on which he has been classified as a permanent employee. Keeping in view law laid down in the case of Hariram (supra) and observations made in para 10 and 12 therein, there is no reason as to why benefit as claimed by the petitioner be not granted. 4. Accordingly, this petition is allowed, respondents are directed to grant to the petitioner regular payscale to the post on which he has been classified in accordance to the provisions of the Standing Standard Orders. Necessary action for payment of salary and other benefit be extended to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 5. Necessary action for payment of salary and other benefit be extended to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 5. The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid." Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment delivered by this Court, the award passed by the Labour Court does not warrant any interference. The petitioners are directed to grant the respondent the regular pay-scale to the post on which he has been classified in accordance with the provisions of standard standing orders. No case for interference is made out in the matter, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The admission is declined. No order as to costs." In view of the aforesaid judgment, as quoted above, which issue has not been set aside by Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find no reason to interfere with the view and the approach taken by the learned single Judge. Consequently present writ appeal is dismissed. 4. In the present writ petition, government has not raised any new grounds as all the grounds raised has been already been considered and rejected by this Court in the order mentioned above. In view of the order passed in the case of Rupram Yadav (supra) and in view of the aforesaid two judgments, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. Certified copy, as per Rules.