Authority directed to decide employees’ pending representation on pay-scale benefits within six months.

The 34 petitioners were employed as Peons/Bhritya Karmis in various Ashrams and Hostels under the Tribal Welfare Department in Balrampur-Ramanujganj District.

They claimed that, being members of Special Backward Tribes and having been engaged on collector-rate/contractual terms, they were entitled to benefits extended to similarly situated Bhritya Karmis, including the pay scale of Rs. 4,750–7,440 with grade pay of Rs. 1,300 and the revised pay scale of Rs. 15,600–49,400 after completion of three years’ service.

The petitioners relied upon the Government directions dated 10 May 1984 concerning conferment of permanent status and revised pay scales upon contingency-paid employees completing three years of service, and upon an order dated 28 June 2022 by which similarly situated employees in Ambikapur were allegedly granted the benefit.

Despite representations, the benefit was not extended to them.

The petitioners therefore sought grant of the pay-scale benefits and arrears, or alternatively a direction for consideration of their pending representation.

The State raised no objection to the limited prayer for consideration of the representation.

1. Whether the petitioners’ claim for grant of the applicable pay scale and arrears, on completion of three years’ service as Bhritya Karmis, was required to be adjudicated directly by the High Court at this stage.

2. Whether Respondent No. 2 should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners’ pending representation in accordance with law.

The Court applied the administrative-law principle that a competent authority must consider and decide a pending representation concerning an employee’s service benefits in accordance with law and within a reasonable time.

It took note of the Government directions dated 10 May 1984 concerning permanent status and revised pay scales for contingency-paid employees completing three years of service, as well as the alleged extension of comparable benefits to similarly situated Bhritya Karmis by order dated 28 June 2022.

The Court did not finally determine whether the petitioners were substantively entitled to the claimed pay scales, revised pay benefits, or arrears.

In view of the nature of the grievance and the State’s absence of objection to the limited relief, it considered it appropriate to require the competent authority to examine the pending representation rather than adjudicate the service-entitlement claim in the first instance.

The representation was therefore directed to be considered in accordance with law, including the applicable Government directions and the petitioners’ claim of parity with similarly situated employees.

The Court granted no direct order for payment of the claimed pay scale, arrears, or interest; those claims were left for consideration by the competent authority in accordance with law.