The constituted College Code Tribunal must decide the pending appeal on its merits.

The petitioner, a former Assistant Professor at Kamala Nehru College, Korba, claimed entitlement to the revised pay scale under the 7th Pay Commission with effect from 1 January 2016. He stated that his services had been regularized and his pay scale fixed pursuant to a civil court decree, and that similarly situated employees had received the revised pay benefit

After an earlier writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to pursue the remedy under Regulation 38 of the College Code, he submitted a representation/appeal on 13 May 2026. He alleged that it remained undecided for more than 90 days

During the present proceedings, the respondents produced a notification dated 8 October 2026 constituting a Tribunal under Regulation 28 of the College Code and stating that the appeal could be filed before it.

Whether the petitioner’s pending representation/appeal concerning the revised pay-scale benefit should be considered and decided by the Tribunal constituted under the College Code

Whether the Court should determine the petitioner’s entitlement to the revised pay scale or consequential benefits in this writ petition

Regulation 38 of the College Code was identified as an alternative remedy available to the petitioner, while Regulation 28 was relied on as the provision under which the Tribunal had been constituted

The Court’s order applied the principle that a competent statutory or institutional forum should decide a pending appeal or representation in accordance with law and on its merits.

The judgment did not interpret the petitioner’s substantive entitlement under the Chhattisgarh Pay Revision Rules, 2017, or the Ministry of Human Resource Development communication dated 2 November 2017

The Court noted that the petitioner had pursued the alternative remedy and that a Tribunal had since been constituted under Regulation 28, with appeals to be placed before it.

Rather than adjudicating the disputed pay-scale entitlement or directing payment of arrears, the Court considered it appropriate for the Tribunal to determine the pending appeal/representation in accordance with law and on its merits.

It expressly left the merits open.

The writ petition was disposed of, with no opinion expressed on the merits of the petitioner’s claim.