Facts
The petitioners, Panchayat Secretaries, challenged the fixation of their pay and consequential recovery in earlier proceedings, W.P.(S) No. 9532 of 2019 and connected matters.
Source reference: para. 2By order dated 24 February 2026, the Court permitted the petitioners in those proceedings to make representations and directed the competent authority to decide them by a reasoned order after hearing them.
Source reference: para. 2A representation submitted by one of those petitioners was forwarded to the Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, after the authority receiving it stated that it was not competent to decide the grievance.
Source reference: para. 2The grievance remained undecided.
Source reference: para. 2In this petition, the petitioners sought permission to submit a fresh representation to the Principal Secretary, and the State submitted that it would be decided within 40 days of receipt.
Source reference: paras. 2–4Issues
Whether the petitioners should be permitted to submit a fresh representation to the Principal Secretary concerning pay fixation, grade pay and consequential recovery.
Source reference: paras. 3, 6Whether the competent authority should be directed to decide that representation by a reasoned and speaking order after providing an opportunity of hearing.
Source reference: paras. 4, 6Law Applied
The Court identified no specific statute or precedent as the basis for its decision.
Source reference: no citationIt applied the procedural direction in its earlier order dated 24 February 2026, under which the competent authority was to consider the representation, afford an opportunity of hearing, and issue a reasoned and speaking order.
Source reference: para. 2The Court also relied on the State’s submission that a fresh representation would be decided within 40 days.
Source reference: para. 4Reasoning
The Court found that the petitioners’ grievance regarding pay fixation and recovery remained unresolved, notwithstanding the earlier proceedings and the forwarding of a representation to the competent authority.
Source reference: paras. 2, 5In light of the parties’ submissions, it permitted a fresh representation supported by the earlier orders and relevant documents, and directed the Principal Secretary to decide it after hearing the petitioners and by a reasoned and speaking order.
Source reference: paras. 3–6Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition, permitting the petitioners to submit a fresh representation to respondent No. 1 within two weeks.
If filed within that period, the representation must be decided in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within 40 days of receipt, after affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.
Source reference: paras. 6–7Original Court PDF
JAIPAL SAHUvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
