Unreasoned denial of revised pay-scale arrears is arbitrary, discriminatory, and constitutionally invalid.

The petitioners, employees/former employees, sought extension of the benefit granted by the Chhattisgarh High Court in W.P.(S) No. 697 of 2013 and connected matters, concerning payment of arrears arising from implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission and other salary revisions for the period from 1 January 2006 to 31 October 2011.

In the alternative, they sought a direction to Respondent No. 3, the Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (CIDC), to decide their representation dated 14 July 2026 in light of the earlier judgment.

The respondents jointly submitted that the issues and facts were identical to those considered in the earlier batch of writ petitions decided on 11 July 2024.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to the same relief granted in W.P.(S) No. 697 of 2013 and connected matters concerning arrears under the Sixth Pay Commission and related salary revisions.

Whether Respondent No. 3 should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners’ representation dated 14 July 2026 in accordance with the earlier judgment.

The Court applied the principle that an executive decision denying arrears of revised pay without assigning reasons may be unreasonable, unfair, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

It relied on the principles stated by the Supreme Court in Bihar State Beverages Corporation Ltd. and Satya Brata Chowdhury, as applied in the earlier judgment, to hold that an unexplained governmental decision could not be sustained.

The Court further applied the doctrine of consistency and parity by extending relief where the facts and legal issues were identical to those adjudicated in an earlier binding decision.

The Court noted that the parties themselves fairly accepted that the present case involved the same factual and legal issues as W.P.(S) No. 697 of 2013 and connected matters.

In the earlier decision, the Court had quashed the State Government’s letter dated 2 March 2012, which denied payment of revised-pay arrears for the period from 1 January 2006 to 31 October 2011 without assigning reasons.

Since the petitioners’ claims arose from the same issue and no distinguishing circumstance was shown, the Court held that there was no justification for taking a different view.

Accordingly, the petitioners were entitled to consideration of the Sixth Pay Commission and other salary-revision benefits, including arrears for the period from 1 January 2006 to 31 October 2011, subject to verification of their entitlement and the amounts claimed.

The competent authorities were required to calculate and release the arrears and decide the representation in accordance with the earlier judgment.