Regularized daily wagers’ claims for pay scale revision must be considered under the 1982 Gazette Notification.

The petitioner, a 69-year-old retired Field Assistant from the Public Health Engineering (PHE) Division, Rajnandgaon, was initially engaged as a daily wage employee and later regularized under the "Works Charged" category.

He filed this writ petition seeking a higher pay scale and a subsequent revision of his pension based on a Gazette notification dated 14.10.1982.

The petitioner contended that his case is identical to a batch of petitions, specifically Dwarikadas Vaishnav another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) and others (WPS No. 2904 of 2005), decided on 05.12.2012, where similarly situated employees were granted the liberty to seek pay revision through representations.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of a higher pay scale and revised pension in accordance with the Gazette notification dated 14.10.1982.

2. Whether the Court should direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s claim in light of existing judicial precedents and government notifications.

Gazette notification dated 14.10.1982 (originally mentioned as 14.10.1992) issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh concerning the pay scales of regularized employees.

The principle of parity as established in Dwarikadas Vaishnav another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (WPS No. 2904 of 2005), which allows employees to approach competent authorities for the revision of service benefits based on state notifications.

Judgment of the State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench in Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay v. State of M.P.

The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the petitioner's entitlement to a higher pay scale. Instead, it focused on the alignment of the petitioner’s circumstances with previous judicial directions.

The petitioner argued that as a regularized employee, he was entitled to the benefits of the 1982 notification, similar to the petitioners in the Dwarikadas Vaishnav case.

The State counsel conceded that if a fresh representation were filed, the State would consider the case in light of the relevant notifications and the Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay precedent.

By applying the procedural precedent from the Coordinate Bench, the Court determined that the appropriate remedy was to mandate a time-bound administrative review rather than a direct judicial grant of the pay scale.

The Court directed the respondents to consider and decide the said representation in light of the Gazette notification dated 14.10.1982.

The final order requires the competent authority to conclude this process expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.