Entitlement to Revised Pay Scales Based on Departmental Circulars Must Be First Addressed Through Administrative Representation

The petitioners, employees under the Panchayat and Rural Development Department, filed three separate writ petitions (WPS No. 2107/2026, 2140/2026, and 2129/2026) seeking the implementation of revised pay scales pursuant to a circular issued by the Deputy Director, Chhattisgarh State Audit (Respondent No. 3), dated October 18, 2024.

The petitioners alleged that despite the circular, the benefits had not been extended and calculations under Schedule 2 of the Pay Revision Rules, 2009, were not correctly performed.

The petitioners approached the High Court directly without first filing a formal representation or appeal with the departmental authorities.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to immediate judicial intervention for the correction of pay calculations and grant of revised pay scales under the Pay Revision Rules, 2009, despite not having previously approached the administrative authorities for relief.

The Court applied the principle of administrative exhaustion and the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It emphasized that before seeking a Writ of Mandamus, a petitioner should ideally approach the relevant authorities with a representation to allow the State to address the grievance.

The court specifically referenced the Pay Revision Rules, 2009, as the statutory framework governing the petitioners' salary entitlements and the circular dated 18.10.2024 as the operative administrative direction.

The Court observed that because the issues raised regarding pay calculation and the application of Schedule 2 of the Pay Revision Rules, 2009, were technical and administrative in nature, they should first be vetted by the executive.

Since the petitioners’ counsel admitted that no representation or appeal had been filed prior to the writ, and because the State counsel indicated that such a representation would be considered if submitted, the Court determined that the most appropriate course of action was to allow the departmental authorities—specifically the Director of Panchayat (Respondent 2) and the Deputy Director of State Audit (Respondent 3)—to decide on the merits of the petitioners' claims in the first instance.

It permitted the petitioners to submit a comprehensive representation to Respondents No. 2 and 3 within a specified timeframe.

The Court directed the concerned authorities to consider and decide upon the said representation in accordance with the law within three months from the receipt of the order.