Authorities must decide representation for revised pay-scale arrears in light of applicable precedent.

The petitioner, a Lecturer (L.B.) serving at Government Higher Secondary School, Temri, was initially appointed in 2010. He claimed that, upon completion of eight years of service in 2018, he became entitled to a revised pay scale and corresponding arrears. According to him, the benefit was not granted from 2018 and was extended only after his absorption into service.

Relying on Mukesh Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS No. 2530 of 2017, decided on 26 November 2017, he sought revised pay-scale arrears from the date of entitlement. The petitioner requested permission to submit a fresh representation and a direction to Respondent No. 4, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Mungeli, to decide it. The State raised no objection to this limited relief.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to submit a fresh representation seeking revised pay-scale benefits and arrears from the date of completion of eight years of service?

Whether Respondent No. 4 should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law, keeping in view Mukesh Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh?

The Court applied the principle that an employee claiming entitlement to revised pay-scale benefits may pursue the claim before the competent authority through a representation, which must be considered and decided in accordance with law.

The Court directed the authority to keep in mind the decision in Mukesh Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS No. 2530 of 2017, concerning the petitioner’s asserted entitlement to revised pay-scale benefits after completion of eight years of service.

The petitioner’s substantive claim was founded on completion of eight years of service and the precedent cited by him.

However, the Court confined itself to the limited procedural relief sought and did not determine whether the revised pay scale or arrears were legally payable. Since the State expressed no objection, the Court considered it appropriate to allow the petitioner to submit a fresh representation. It directed Respondent No. 4 to examine the claim in accordance with law and with due regard to Mukesh Kumar Patel.

The petitioner was permitted to submit a fresh representation before Respondent No. 4. If submitted, Respondent No. 4 was directed to decide it expeditiously, preferably within four months of receipt, in accordance with law and keeping in view Mukesh Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh.