Competent authority directed to decide representations for pay scale revision per Notification dated 14.10.1982.

The petitioners are retired Field Assistants who were originally appointed as daily wage employees and subsequently regularized into service.

They approached the High Court seeking the benefit of a higher pay scale and revised pension based on a State of Madhya Pradesh Gazette Notification dated 14.10.1982.

The petitioners relied on a previous Coordinate Bench decision in *Dwarikadas Vaishnav v. State of M.P.* (WPS No. 2904/2005) which granted similar liberty to regularized employees.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the revision of their pay scale and subsequent pensionary benefits in light of the Gazette Notification dated 14.10.1982.

2. Whether the respondent authorities should be directed to consider fresh representations from the petitioners regarding service anomalies and arrears.

The Court's directions are predicated on the Gazette Notification dated 14.10.1982 (formerly identified as 14.10.1992) issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, which governs pay scale revisions for regularized employees.

The Court also referenced the judicial precedent set in Dwarikadas Vaishnav & another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh), WPS No. 2904/2005, which established the procedural precedent of allowing retired employees to file fresh representations for pay revision based on the 1982 notification.

Additionally, the State referenced Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay v. State of M.P., a judgment by the State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench, concerning similar service benefits.

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

Given that the petitioners were similarly situated to the parties in the *Dwarikadas Vaishnav* case—having transitioned from daily wage to regularized status—the Court found it appropriate to apply the same relief of allowing fresh representations.

The State Counsel conceded that while the issue had been considered previously in light of the *Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay* case, they would re-examine the matters if fresh representations were submitted.

Consequently, the Court linked the statutory entitlement under the 1982 Notification to the administrative duty of the State to resolve these claims within a specific timeframe.

It directed the petitioners to file fresh representations before the competent authority.

The Court ordered the concerned competent authority to consider and decide these representations in light of the Notification dated 14.10.1982 and in accordance with the law.

The relief stipulated that these decisions must be made expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order.