Upon fresh representation, competent authority must decide pay-scale revision claims under the applicable notification within six months.

The six petitioners were former Time Keepers in various divisions of the Rural Engineering Services and had either retired or sought service-related benefits.

They claimed higher pay-scale benefits, revision of pension, arrears of salary and pension, and removal of alleged service anomalies on the basis of the Gazette Notification dated 14 October 1982.

The petitioners relied on the decision in Dwarikadas Vaishnav & Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) & Others, decided by a Coordinate Bench on 5 December 2012, wherein similarly situated employees were permitted to submit fresh representations for consideration of their pay-scale claims.

The State submitted that the issue had previously been considered in the light of the decision of the State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench, in Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay v. State of M.P., but stated that any fresh representation would be considered in accordance with the applicable notification.

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to have their claims for revision of pay scale, pension, arrears, and removal of service anomaly considered in the light of the Gazette Notification dated 14 October 1982.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide a fresh representation by the petitioners in accordance with the aforesaid notification and the principles indicated in the earlier decision in Dwarikadas Vaishnav.

Where employees assert service and pensionary benefits on the basis of an applicable government notification and rely on a decision concerning similarly situated employees, they may be permitted to submit a fresh representation for consideration by the competent authority.

The Court relied upon the Coordinate Bench’s order dated 5 December 2012 in Dwarikadas Vaishnav & Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) & Others, which granted similarly situated employees liberty to make fresh representations concerning revision of pay scale.

The Court also took note of the State Administrative Tribunal’s decision in Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay v. State of M.P., in the context of the State’s earlier consideration of the issue.

The relevant government notification was referred to in the order as the notification dated 14 October 1982, although paragraph 2 also mentions 14 October 1992 as the date subsequently modified to 14 October 1982.

The Court did not adjudicate the petitioners’ substantive entitlement to higher pay scales, revised pension, arrears, or correction of service anomalies.

Instead, it considered the parties’ consensus that the petitioners could pursue their claims through a fresh representation.

Since the petitioners relied on the earlier Dwarikadas Vaishnav decision and the State expressed willingness to examine a fresh representation in light of the relevant notification, the Court adopted the same procedural course.

It therefore directed the competent authority to consider and decide such representation expeditiously, without recording a final finding on the merits of the petitioners’ claims.

The petitioners were permitted to file a fresh representation before the competent authority, and the competent authority was directed to consider and decide it in light of the relevant Gazette Notification dated 14 October 1982, preferably within six months from the date of receipt or production of a certified copy of the order.

No direct order granting revised pay scales, pension, arrears, or other monetary benefits was issued.