Directing consideration of representations for pay scale revision and pension based on 1982 Gazette Notification.

The petitioners are retired Field Assistants who previously served in the Public Health Engineering and Public Works Departments of Chhattisgarh.

They were originally engaged as daily wage employees and were subsequently regularized in service.

The petitioners 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.

They contended that similarly situated employees had previously been granted liberty by the Court in Dwarikadas Vaishnav & induction v. State of M.P. (WPS No. 2904/2005) to represent their cases for such revisions.

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

Whether the respondent authorities are required to consider fresh representations from the petitioners regarding pay anomalies and arrears.

The court's directions were predicated on the Gazette Notification dated 14.10.1982 (as modified) issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh regarding pay scales for regularized employees.

It further relied on the procedural precedent set in Dwarikadas Vaishnav & another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) and others, WPS No. 2904 of 2005, which established that the competent authority must consider individual representations of regularized daily wagers for pay revision.

The court also noted the legal principles discussed by the State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench in Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay v. State of M.P.

The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the entitlement but focused on the parity of treatment with similarly situated employees.

It observed that since the petitioners were regularized after daily wage service, their claim for pay revision under the 14.10.1982 Notification warranted administrative review.

The Court took note of the State’s submission that they had previously considered such issues under the Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay precedent but were willing to re-examine fresh representations.

Consequently, the Court found it appropriate to delegate the factual determination of eligibility to the competent executive authorities, ensuring the administrative process is completed within a fixed timeline.

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

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

The relief specified that this exercise must be completed expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the order.