Entitlement to Revised Higher Pay Scales for Regularized Daily Wage Employees under Madhya Pradesh Gazette Notification 14.10.1982.

The petitioners are retired Field Assistants from the Public Health Engineering and Public Works Departments in Chhattisgarh.

They were originally engaged as daily wage employees and subsequently had their services regularized.

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

They cited previous judicial interventions, specifically an order dated 09.06.2025 in WPS/3524/2025, requesting a direction for the authorities to consider their claims via fresh representations.

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

2. Whether the court should direct the respondent authorities to decide the petitioners' grievances through a formal representation process.

The Court primarily relied upon the Gazette Notification dated 14.10.1982 (as modified) issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh (applicable to Chhattisgarh), regarding the revision of pay scales for regularized employees.

It further considered the judicial precedent set in *Dwarikadas Vaishnav & Another v. State of M.P. (now Chhattisgarh) and Others* (WPS No. 2904 of 2005), which established the procedure for regularized daily wagers to seek pay revisions through fresh representations to competent authorities.

Additionally, reference was made to the principles laid down by the State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench, in *Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay v. State of M.P.*

The Court observed that the petitioners sought reliefs identical to those granted in previous batches of writ petitions involving similarly situated regularized employees.

The petitioners’ counsel argued that the questions of law and fact were covered by the decision in *Dwarikadas Vaishnav*, wherein liberty was granted to file fresh representations.

The State’s counsel did not oppose the reconsideration of the matter, provided the petitioners submitted fresh representations for the competent authority to examine in light of the 1982 Notification.

Consequently, the Court did not adjudicate the merits of the pay scale entitlement but focused on the procedural remedy of administrative review to ensure consistency with prior judicial orders.

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

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