Direction to consider representations for pay scale revision and pension based on 14.10.1982 Gazette Notification.

The petitioners, including Shiv Kumar Singh, Ankalu Das Manikpuri, Rameshwar Singh Chandel, and Vipin Deshkar, are retired employees (Field Assistants) of the Public Health Engineering and Public Works Departments in Chhattisgarh.

They were initially engaged as daily wage employees and were subsequently regularized.

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking the benefit of higher pay scales and revised pensions based on a State of Madhya Pradesh Gazette Notification dated 14.10.1982.

They contended that they are entitled to parity with similarly situated employees whose grievances were addressed in prior litigations.

Whether the petitioners are entitled to the revision of pay scales and pensionary benefits in accordance with the Notification dated 14.10.1982 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh.

Whether the respondent authorities are required to decide the petitioners' claims in light of the precedents set by the Court in similar matters.

The court relied on the principles of administrative parity and the binding nature of state notifications governing pay revisions.

Specifically, it referenced the Madhya Pradesh State Gazette Notification dated 14.10.1982 (as modified) regarding pay scale revisions for regularized employees.

It further applied the procedural precedent from Dwarikadas Vaishnav & another v. State of M.P. (now Chhattisgarh), WPS No. 2904 of 2005, which allowed similarly situated employees to file fresh representations for consideration by competent authorities.

Reference was also made to the State Administrative Tribunal’s decision in Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay v. State of M.P.

The Court did not adjudicate upon the merits of the pay revision claim itself but focused on the procedural right of the petitioners to have their cases evaluated by the executive in light of existing rules and precedents.

By noting the similarity between the present batch of petitions and the Dwarikadas Vaishnav case, the Court observed that the grievance regarding the 14.10.1982 notification had been previously recognized as a matter for departmental representation.

Since the State counsel conceded that fresh representations could be considered in light of the relevant notifications, the Court determined that an identical direction would suffice to resolve the legal interests of the parties without unnecessary protraction of litigation.

It directed the petitioners to file fresh representations before the competent authority within a specified timeframe.

The Court ordered the competent authority to consider and decide these representations in light of the Notification dated 14.10.1982 and relevant law, preferably within a period of six months from the receipt of the order.