Competent authority must reconsider pay-scale revision claims under the applicable notification upon fresh representation.

The four petitioners were retired “Sthal Sahayaks” formerly employed in the Water Resources Department of the State of Chhattisgarh.

They claimed that an anomaly existed in the pay scales granted to them after their services, initially rendered as daily-wage employees, were regularized.

Relying on the State notification dated 14.10.1992, stated to have been subsequently modified as 14.10.1982, they sought grant of the applicable pay scale and arrears from their respective dates of appointment.

The petitioners also relied on the decision in Dwarikadas Vaishnav & another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) & others, W.P.(S) No. 2904 of 2005, decided by a Coordinate Bench on 05.12.2012, where similarly situated employees were granted liberty to submit fresh representations.

The State submitted that the issue had earlier been considered in light of the State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench decision in Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay v. State of M.P., but expressed willingness to reconsider the matter upon a fresh representation.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to consideration of their claim for revision of pay scale under the notification dated 14.10.1992, subsequently referred to as 14.10.1982, in view of their prior daily-wage service and subsequent regularization.

Whether the petitioners should be permitted to submit fresh representations for determination of their pay-scale and arrears claims by the competent authority.

The Court applied the principle that an employee claiming revision of pay scale under a government notification must first have the competent administrative authority examine and decide the claim in accordance with the applicable notification and relevant service-law precedents.

The Court relied upon the Coordinate Bench decision in Dwarikadas Vaishnav & another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) & others, W.P.(S) No. 2904 of 2005, which permitted similarly situated employees to file fresh representations concerning pay-scale revision.

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

The relevant notification dated 14.10.1992, stated in the order to have subsequently been modified as 14.10.1982, was directed to guide the competent authority’s consideration.

The Court did not adjudicate the petitioners’ substantive entitlement to the claimed pay scale or arrears.

It found that the issue could appropriately be examined by the competent administrative authority, particularly because the petitioners asserted parity with employees covered by the earlier Coordinate Bench decision and the State agreed to reconsider the matter upon a fresh representation.

Applying the principle reflected in Dwarikadas Vaishnav, the Court directed that the petitioners’ claim be considered in light of the applicable notification and relevant material, while leaving the merits of the entitlement open for administrative determination.

The petitioners were granted liberty to submit a fresh representation before the competent authority.

The authority was directed to consider and decide the representation in light of the applicable notification dated 14.10.1992/14.10.1982 and the relevant precedents, expeditiously and preferably within six months from the date of receipt or production of a certified copy of the order.