Facts
The fifteen petitioners were retired 'Sthal Sahayaks' (Site Assistants) previously employed by the Water Resources Department of Chhattisgarh across various districts including Janjgir-Champa and Korba
Source reference: p. 1-2The petitioners were initially engaged as daily wage employees and were subsequently regularized into service
Source reference: p. 4Relying on a State of Madhya Pradesh Notification dated 14.10.1982 (originally cited as 14.10.1992), the petitioners claimed there were anomalies in their service and sought a revision of their pay scales and payment of arrears from their initial dates of appointment
Source reference: p. 3-4They further sought parity with relief granted in WPS No. 775/2025
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a revision of pay scales and payment of arrears based on the Gazette Notification dated 14.10.1982
Source reference: p. 32. Whether the Court should direct the respondents to consider a fresh representation by the petitioners in light of the judgment in Dwarikadas Vaishnav another v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Source reference: p. 4Law Applied
The Court relied on the precedent set by the Coordinate Bench in Dwarikadas Vaishnav another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) and others (WPS No. 2904 of 2005, decided on 05.12.2012), which established the procedural right of regularized employees to seek pay scale revision via representation to competent authorities
Source reference: p. 4It also considered the legal principles regarding pay scale anomalies arising from the Gazette Notification dated 14.10.1982 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, as well as the administrative precedent found in Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay v. State of M.P.
Source reference: p. 4Reasoning
The Court observed that the facts and legal questions presented by the petitioners were substantially similar to those addressed in the batch of writ petitions led by Dwarikadas Vaishnav
Source reference: p. 4Rather than adjudicating the merits of the pay scale revision directly, the Court focused on the standard procedural remedy of allowing the petitioners to approach the Executive Branch for administrative review.
Source reference: p. 4The Court noted the State's submission that while similar issues had been considered regarding the Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay case, the State was willing to re-examine the petitioners' specific claims if a fresh representation were submitted
Source reference: p. 4By directing this course of action, the Court applied the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies while ensuring the petitioners’ claims were evaluated against the specific 1982 Notification
Source reference: p. 4-5Holding
The High Court disposed of the writ petition without a final adjudication on the merits of the pay scale claim. It granted the petitioners liberty to submit a fresh representation before the appropriate competent authority
The Court ordered that if such a representation is submitted, the competent authority must consider and decide the case in light of the 14.10.1982 Notification within an expeditious timeframe, preferably within six months from the receipt of the order
Source reference: p. 5Original Court PDF
KEDARNATH KASHYAPvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in