Claim for second time-bound pay scale must be considered on comprehensive representation under applicable law.

The petitioner, Mahendra Kumar Jaiswal, retired from the post of Assistant Grade-II on 31 March 2026 upon attaining the age of superannuation.

He claimed that, although he had completed more than 20 years of service and had been granted the first time-bound pay scale after completing 10 years of service, he was not granted the second time-bound pay scale due after completion of 20 years of service.

Relying on the State Government circulars dated 8 August 2018 and 11 June 2019, and the decisions in R.S. Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. and State of Tripura & Ors. v. K.K. Roy, the petitioner sought directions for grant of the second time-bound pay scale, arrears, and interest.

The State submitted that the petitioner’s grievance could be considered by the competent authority if he submitted a representation.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to consideration of his claim for the second time-bound pay scale upon completion of 20 years of service under the applicable State Government circulars and precedents?

Whether the Court should directly grant the second time-bound pay scale and consequential arrears, or direct the competent authority to first consider the petitioner’s claim through a representation?

The Court considered the State Government circulars dated 8 August 2018 and 11 June 2019, under which time-bound pay-scale benefits were claimed to be available after completion of 10, 20, and 30 years of service.

It also relied upon the principles arising from R.S. Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., WPS No. 2805 of 2002, decided on 29 August 2006, and the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Tripura & Ors. v. K.K. Roy, reported in 2004 AIR SCW 1, concerning consideration of entitlement to time-bound pay-scale benefits.

The governing procedural principle applied was that the competent administrative authority should examine the employee’s claim in the first instance, particularly where the factual and service-record aspects required consideration.

The Court noted that the petitioner had completed more than 20 years of service, had already received the first time-bound pay scale, and claimed non-grant of the second benefit after retirement.

Since the claim was founded on the applicable Government circulars and the decisions cited by the petitioner, the Court considered it appropriate for Respondent No. 2—the Commissioner, Land Records—to examine the claim administratively.

The State did not oppose such consideration and agreed that a representation could be examined in accordance with law.

Accordingly, without finally determining the petitioner’s substantive entitlement, the Court directed that a comprehensive representation supported by relevant documents be considered expeditiously.

The petitioner was permitted to submit a comprehensive representation, along with supporting documents, to Respondent No. 2.

The concerned authority was directed to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law, preferably within three months from its receipt.

No specific direction was issued at this stage regarding arrears or interest.