MP HC Directs 90-Day Decision On Retired Timekeeper’s Claim For Pay Scales From 1982, Leaves Merits Open

The petitioner, a retired Time Keeper, sought specified pay-scale benefits and subsequent revisions, relying on prior decisions including A.L. Thakur and R.K. Lakhera.

He asked the Court to direct the respondents to decide his claim in light of Bipin Kumar Bansal and an order in Sandeep Vishwakarma.

The State disputed the applicability of A.L. Thakur, submitting that the underlying decision in Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay had been set aside by the Division Bench in W.P. No. 945/2001, and also relied on Parmanand Kushwah.

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court did not state or apply a substantive rule governing entitlement to the claimed pay scales; instead, it directed the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law.

The petitioner sought a time-bound decision on his claim, while the State raised a dispute about the effect and applicability of the authorities relied on by him.

Rather than decide that dispute or determine whether the petitioner was entitled to the scales, the Court directed respondent No. 2 to consider a fresh representation, taking account of Bipin Kumar Bansal, other similarly situated persons, A.L. Thakur, the Division Bench decision in W.P. No. 945/2001, and Parmanand Kushwah.

The Court expressly left the merits open.

The petitioner was directed to submit the order, petition, annexures, and a fresh representation to respondent No. 2 within two weeks; respondent No. 2 must decide it within 90 days thereafter.

If the petitioner’s claim is found to be at par with that of similarly situated persons, the corresponding benefit must also be extended to him for the same period.