Authorities must decide pending claims for revised pay scale benefits through a comprehensive representation process.

The petitioners, employees under various Janpad and Zila Panchayats in Chhattisgarh, filed three separate writ petitions seeking the implementation of revised pay scales.

They contended that they are entitled to pay revision as per the circular issued by the Deputy Director, Chhattisgarh State Audit (Respondent No. 3) dated 18.10.2024.

However, the petitioners approached the High Court directly without first filing a formal representation or appeal before the departmental authorities.

Due to the commonality of the legal issues and grievances, the court heard the petitions together, treating WPS No. 2107 of 2026 as the lead case.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a direction for the calculation and grant of salary as per Schedule 2 of the Pay Revision Rules, 2009 and the circular dated 18.10.2024?

2. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable at this stage without the petitioners having first exhausted their administrative remedies through a representation to the authorities?

The court's decision is centered on the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies and administrative hierarchy.

The petitioners relied upon the Pay Revision Rules, 2009 (specifically Schedule 2) and the State Audit Department's circular dated 18.10.2024 regarding pay scale corrections.

The court applied the procedural doctrine that before invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226, a claimant should typically allow the concerned administrative authorities to decide on a comprehensive representation regarding their grievances.

The Court observed that while the petitioners sought specific reliefs regarding pay revision and salary calculations, they admitted upon inquiry that no representation or appeal had been submitted to the relevant departmental heads.

The State counsel noted that if such a representation were submitted, it would be considered in accordance with the law.

Consequently, the Court found it unnecessary to adjudicate on the merits of the pay revision at this juncture.

Instead, it determined that the appropriate course of action was to redirect the petitioners to the administrative authorities (Respondents No. 2 and 3) to allow them the first opportunity to resolve the factual and legal discrepancies in pay calculation.

It granted the petitioners liberty to submit a comprehensive representation before the Director of Panchayat Sanchalnalay and the Deputy Director of State Audit.

The court directed the concerned authorities to consider and decide upon said representation in accordance with the law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order.