Competent Authorities Directed to Consider Pay Scale Revision for Regularized Employees as per 1982 Notification

The seven petitioners (including legal heirs of deceased employees) were originally daily wage employees of the Water Resource Department whose services were subsequently regularized.

They approached the High Court seeking the removal of service anomalies and the grant of pay scales as prescribed in a Gazette Notification dated 14.10.1982.

The petitioners relied on a previous decision of a Coordinate Bench in Dwarikadas Vaishnav & another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) (WPS No. 2904 of 2005).

The State maintained that it had previously considered such issues based on precedents from the State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench, but expressed willingness to review fresh representations.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a revision of their pay scale in accordance with the Gazette Notification dated 14.10.1982 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh.

2. Whether the court should direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioners’ grievances in light of the liberty granted in similar matters like Bhojram Nayak v. State of Chhattisgarh.

The Court's directions were predicated on the administrative application of the Gazette Notification dated 14.10.1982 (as modified) issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh regarding pay scales for regularized employees.

The court also relied on the principle of parity and judicial consistency, citing the precedent set in Dwarikadas Vaishnav & another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh).

The guidelines established in Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay v. State of M.P. by the State Administrative Tribunal.

The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the pay scale entitlement but focused on the procedural right of the petitioners to have their claims evaluated by the competent authority.

By observing that the petitioners' situation was "similarly situated" in fact and law to the batch of petitions led by Dwarikadas Vaishnav, the Court applied the same logic of granting liberty to file a representation rather than issuing a writ of mandamus for immediate payment.

The Court took note of the State’s submission that if a fresh representation were filed, they would consider it specifically in light of the 1982 Notification, thereby bridging the gap between the petitioners' demand and the administrative review process.

The Court directed that if the petitioners file a fresh representation before the competent authority, said authority must consider and decide the matter in light of the Notification dated 14.10.1982. The order mandates the disposal of such representation expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.