Creamy layer status cannot be decided by income alone: MP HC

Gwalior: The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench, has set aside orders denying an Other Backward Classes (OBC) certificate to a woman applicant and directed the competent authority to reconsider her case afresh.

Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke pronounced the order on Wednesday, September 29, 2026, in a writ petition filed in 2023 by Ragini Rathore.

The petitioner had challenged the order dated October 23, 2020, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Isagarh, which rejected her application for an OBC certificate.

The rejection was based solely on the ground that her father’s gross salary income for the preceding three years stood at Rs 16,99,282, exceeding the prescribed monetary ceiling for the creamy layer.

The Additional Collector, Ashoknagar district, dismissed her appeal on November 29, 2022, affirming the same view.

The petitioner contended that the authorities had mechanically applied the income criterion without examining the nature of her father’s employment or the applicable service-category rules.

She submitted that her father was initially appointed as Civil Judge Class-II and was promoted to Civil Judge Class-I only on June 16, 2008, after attaining the age of 40 years.

She further stated that her father had no income other than salary and that she herself was unemployed and fully dependent on her parents.

Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India & Others v. Rohith Nathan & Others (order dated March 11, 2026) and a recent decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Sunita Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner argued that creamy layer status cannot be determined merely by applying an income ceiling.

She contended that the status and category of the post held by the parent, as well as the distinction between status-based exclusion and the Income/Wealth Test, must be considered. Salary income alone, she argued, cannot be treated as the sole criterion.

The High Court observed that the controversy could not be resolved solely on the quantum of salary.

It noted that the authorities had failed to examine the relevant government circulars, the service status of the petitioner’s father, the date of his promotion, and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

Consequently, the court set aside both the SDO's order and the Additional Collector's appellate order.

The matter has been remanded to the competent authority for fresh consideration.

The authority has been directed to consider the applicable circulars, the service particulars of the petitioner’s father, the nature of his income, and binding judicial precedents.

The court directed that a reasoned and speaking order be passed, preferably within six weeks, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

The court clarified that it had expressed no final opinion on the petitioner’s entitlement to the OBC certificate.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

IANS

[email protected]