Liberty granted to file representation for retrospective regular pay scale benefits of daily wage employees.

The five petitioners were appointed as daily wage employees (Cooks and Watermen) on Collector’s rates between 1992 and 1995 under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department

Although they were eventually granted a regular pay scale starting from September 9, 2008, they claim entitlement to the regular pay scale immediately upon completing three years of service from their initial dates of appointment

They relied on an order dated April 20, 2018, asserting that similarly situated employees had already received such benefits

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking a direction for regular pay scales and arrears based on the principle of "equal pay for equal work" without first submitting a formal representation to the respondent authorities

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a regular pay scale upon the completion of three years of service from their initial date of appointment

2. Whether the petitioners should be permitted to submit a representation to the administrative authorities for the redressal of their grievances prior to judicial intervention

The court considered the principle of "equal pay for equal work" as a basis for the petitioners' claim for parity in pay scales

It further applied the administrative principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies, whereby aggrieved employees are generally expected to submit a formal representation to the competent departmental authorities before seeking writ jurisdiction under Article 226

The Court did not adjudicate the substantive merits of the petitioners' claim for retrospective pay scale benefits

Instead, it focused on the procedural lapse highlighted by the State Counsel—that the petitioners had filed the writ petition without first seeking relief through departmental channels

The Court noted the petitioners' willingness to submit a formal representation if granted liberty to do so

Consequently, the Court determined that the appropriate course of action was to allow the petitioners to present their case, including the precedents they relied upon (such as the 2018 order), directly to the Assistant Commissioner and the Collector (Respondents 4 and 5) for an administrative decision

The Court directed the said respondents to consider and decide the representation in accordance with the law within four months of receipt

The Court explicitly clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the case, leaving the authorities free to make an independent decision