Competent authorities must decide fresh representations on pay-scale revision under the applicable notification.

The petitioners, who were formerly engaged as daily-wage employees and subsequently regularized as Time Keepers in the Rural Engineering Services, sought the benefit of a higher pay scale, revision of pension for the retired petitioner, payment of consequential arrears, and removal of alleged pay anomalies under the State notification dated 14.10.1982. Petitioner No. 1 had retired, while Petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 were serving employees.

The petitioners relied on the Coordinate Bench’s order dated 05.12.2012 in Dwarikadas Vaishnav v. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh), arising from W.P.(S) No. 2904 of 2005, where similarly situated employees were granted liberty to submit fresh representations.

The State submitted that the issue had previously been considered in light of the decision in Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay v. State of M.P., but stated that a fresh representation would be considered in light of the relevant notification.

Whether the petitioners should be permitted to submit fresh representations seeking revision of their pay scale and pensionary benefits under the State notification dated 14.10.1982, in view of the earlier order in Dwarikadas Vaishnav?

Whether the competent authority should consider and decide such representations within a prescribed period?

The Court applied the principle that where similarly situated employees have been granted liberty to approach the competent authority for reconsideration of their claims, a subsequent writ petition may be disposed of by granting similar liberty, without adjudicating the substantive entitlement at the writ stage.

The Court relied on the Coordinate Bench’s order dated 05.12.2012 in Dwarikadas Vaishnav v. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh), which concerned revision of pay-scale claims under the relevant State notification.

The Court also directed consideration in light of the notification dated 14.10.1982, referred to in the submissions as having initially been mentioned as 14.10.1992 and subsequently modified.

The State’s earlier consideration of the issue in light of Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay v. State of M.P. was also noted.

The Court did not determine whether the petitioners were substantively entitled to the higher pay scale, revised pension, arrears, or removal of the alleged anomaly.

Instead, it noted that the petitioners relied on an earlier order granting similarly situated employees an opportunity to submit fresh representations. Since the State expressly agreed to consider a fresh representation in light of the notification, the Court adopted the same procedural course.

It therefore directed the petitioners to approach the competent authority, which was required to examine and decide their claims in accordance with the notification dated 14.10.1982.

The competent authority was directed to consider and decide the representations in light of the notification dated 14.10.1982, expeditiously and preferably within six months from the date of receipt or production of a certified copy of the order.

No final determination was made on the petitioners’ entitlement to higher pay, revised pension, arrears, or other consequential benefits.