BABY T. VERGHESE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was promoted on the post of Estate Manager in M.P.Housing Board on 26/9/1994 and thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Accounts Officer on 31/7/2000 and thereafter on 31/1/2001 he being Accounts Officer of the M.P.Housing Board stood superannuated from that Board though at that very time he was posted at Durg in the territory of the State of Chhattisgarh, but thereafter C.G.Housing Board was constituted on 12/2/2004. Thereafter, on 10/3/2004 the Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered a decision in which the Estate Managers of the M.P.Housing board were held to be entitled for pay scale of Rs.2200.00­4000 in writ petition filed by some of the Estate Managers being Writ Petition No.2879/2001 (Vivek Diwan and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others). Thereafter, the petitioner also filed writ petition being WP No.15721/2005 (S) before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh claiming the same benefit as given to Vivek Diwan and others by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, but the petitioner for reason best known withdrawn that writ petition on 12/3/2007 and this writ petition was filed before this Court on 16/1/2008. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's representation to the C.G.Housing Board claiming pay scale as granted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in vivek Diwan (supra) has been rejected by the C.G.Housing Board on 13/7/2007, which has been called in question in this writ petition.

(2.) Return has been filed by the C.G.Housing Board stating that the petitioner has already retired from the post of Accounts Officer from M.P.Housing Board on 31/1/2001 as the C.G.Housing Board was constituted on 12/2/2004 and only on the amount given by the M.P.Housing Board, pension is being paid to the petitioner, whereas M.P.Housing Board has filed return stating inter-alia that M.P. Housing Board is not responsible for payment of revised pay scale and C.G.Housing Board is responsible for payment of revised pay scale.

(3.) Mr.Sunil Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that benefit of revised pay scale on the post of Estate Manager is not being granted by both Housing Boards and he is required to run from pillar to post to get the said benefit as both Housing Boards are denying responsibility to pay the revised pay scale to the petitioner, which the petitioner is otherwise entitled by order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which is not in dispute, therefore, respondents No.2 and 3 be directed to pay the revised pay scale to the petitioner.