Facts
The petitioner, a former daily-wage employee whose services were subsequently regularised, sought regular pay from 1 August 1991, a higher pay scale following revision under a State notification, and arrears with interest
Source reference: para. 1He relied on the Coordinate Bench’s order in Dwarikadas Vaishnav & Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) & Others, WPS No. 2904 of 2005, dated 5 December 2012, and requested that his claim be considered in light of the notification referred to by counsel
Source reference: para. 2The State submitted that the issue had previously been considered with reference to the State Administrative Tribunal’s decision in Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay v. State of M.P., but agreed to consider a fresh representation
Source reference: para. 3Issues
1. Whether the petitioner’s claim for pay-scale revision should be considered by the competent authority upon submission of a fresh representation.
Source reference: para. 42. Whether the petitioner was entitled, in this proceeding, to an order granting the claimed pay scales and arrears.
Source reference: paras. 1, 4–5Law Applied
The Court applied no statutory provision or substantive legal test to determine the petitioner’s entitlement to a particular pay scale.
Source reference: paras. 2, 4It referred to the Coordinate Bench’s order in Dwarikadas Vaishnav, under which petitioners had been granted liberty to submit fresh representations, and directed consideration of the petitioner’s representation in light of the relevant State notification.
Source reference: paras. 2, 4Reasoning
In light of the parties’ submissions—including the State’s agreement to consider a fresh representation—the Court disposed of the petition by providing a procedural remedy rather than adjudicating the petitioner’s entitlement to regular or higher pay
Source reference: paras. 3–4It left the merits to the competent authority, directing that the representation be considered in light of the aforesaid notification.
Source reference: para. 4Holding
The petition was disposed of.
The petitioner may file a fresh representation before the competent authority, which must consider and decide it in light of the aforesaid notification, preferably within six months of receiving or being produced with a certified copy of the order.
Source reference: paras. 4–5No pay-scale enhancement, arrears, or interest was directly awarded.
Source reference: paras. 4–5Original Court PDF
VIDESHI KUMAR PATELvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
