Court directs competent authority to decide pay-scale claim under relevant precedents without adjudicating its merits.

The petitioner, a retired Time Keeper of the respondent department, sought the benefit of the pay scale of ₹3050–4590 with effect from 24 January 1989, subsequent revised pay scales, re-fixation of pension, and consequential arrears under Article 226 of the Constitution.

He relied upon the decisions in A.L. Thakur v. State of M.P., R.K. Lakhera v. State of M.P., and Bipin Kumar Bansal v. State of M.P., in which similarly situated employees had allegedly been granted comparable relief.

The petitioner requested that the competent authority be directed to consider his claim in light of those decisions and a similar order passed in Sandeep Vishwakarma v. State of M.P.

The State contended that A.L. Thakur was based on the decision in Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay v. State of M.P., which had been set aside by the Division Bench in W.P. No. 945/2001, and also relied upon Parmanand Kushwah v. State of M.P.

Whether the petitioner’s claim for the ₹3050–4590 pay scale, revised pay benefits, pension re-fixation, and arrears should be considered in light of the decisions concerning similarly situated employees.

Whether the competent authority was required to examine the effect and applicability of A.L. Thakur, the Division Bench decision in W.P. No. 945/2001, and Parmanand Kushwah before deciding the petitioner’s representation.

Whether the High Court should itself adjudicate the merits of the petitioner’s entitlement or remit the matter to the competent authority for a reasoned decision.

The Court exercised its supervisory and writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but adopted the limited-remand approach where the administrative authority had not yet finally adjudicated the petitioner’s individual entitlement.

The Court directed consideration of the claim in accordance with law and with due regard to relevant precedents, including A.L. Thakur v. State of M.P., R.K. Lakhera v. State of M.P., Bipin Kumar Bansal v. State of M.P., the Division Bench decision in W.P. No. 945/2001 dated 02.02.2006, and Parmanand Kushwah v. State of M.P.

The governing principle was that parity benefits may be extended to a claimant found to be similarly situated, but only after the competent authority examines the factual and legal applicability of the relevant decisions; the writ court did not determine the merits in the absence of such consideration.

The Court noted that the petitioner relied on decisions granting or considering similar pay-scale benefits, while the State raised a substantial objection regarding the precedential basis and continuing applicability of A.L. Thakur, particularly in view of the Division Bench decision in W.P. No. 945/2001 and Parmanand Kushwah.

Since these competing precedents and the petitioner’s individual service circumstances required examination by the competent authority, the Court did not conclusively determine whether the petitioner was entitled to the claimed pay scale or pensionary benefits.

Instead, it directed Respondent No. 2 to consider a fresh representation after examining the cited decisions and the cases of similarly situated employees.

The Court further protected the petitioner’s claim by directing that, if he was found to be at par with similarly situated persons, the corresponding benefit should be extended for the same period.

The petitioner was directed to submit, within two weeks, a copy of the order, the writ petition with annexures, and a fresh representation before Respondent No. 2/competent authority.

The competent authority was directed to decide the representation within 90 days thereafter, after considering Bipin Kumar Bansal, A.L. Thakur, the Division Bench decision in W.P. No. 945/2001, Parmanand Kushwah, and the claims of similarly situated employees.

If the petitioner was found to be similarly situated, the requisite benefits were to be extended to him for the same period.

The Court expressly clarified that it had not examined the merits and that the authority must decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.