Direction to decide representation for pay scale revision and pension under the 1982 Gazette notification.

The Petitioner, a retired Field Assistant from the Water Resources Division, Rajnandgaon, was initially engaged as a daily wage employee and subsequently regularized

He filed this writ petition seeking a direction for the respondents to grant him the benefits of a higher pay scale and a revised pension based on the Gazette Notification dated 14.10.1982 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh

The Petitioner relied on a previous order passed by a Coordinate Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Dwarikadas Vaishnav another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) and others (WPS No. 2904 of 2005), which dealt with similar facts and legal questions regarding pay revision for regularized employees

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a revision of pay scale and pension benefits in accordance with the Gazette Notification dated 14.10.1982

2. Whether the court should direct the respondent authorities to consider the Petitioner’s claim via a fresh representation in light of settled precedents

The Court considered the Gazette Notification dated 14.10.1982 (as modified) issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, which governs the revision of pay scales for employees whose services were regularized after daily wage employment.

It further applied the principle of parity established in Dwarikadas Vaishnav another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) and others (WPS No. 2904 of 2005), where the court allowed petitioners to seek administrative redress through representations.

Reference was made to the judgment of the State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench, in Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay v. State of M.P.

The Petitioner’s counsel argued that the matter was squarely covered by the decision in the Dwarikadas Vaishnav case, involving identical questions of law regarding the application of the 1982 notification to regularized staff.

The State’s counsel submitted that while the State had previously considered such issues following the Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay ruling, it would be willing to re-examine the Petitioner’s specific case upon a fresh representation.

The Court, without adjudicating the merits of the pay scale claim, determined that the Petitioner should be granted the same procedural relief as the petitioners in the Dwarikadas Vaishnav batch, thereby directing the administrative authorities to exercise their decision-making power in accordance with the relevant notification.

The Court directed the competent authority to consider and decide the representation in light of the Gazette Notification dated 14.10.1982 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.