MOHD. INAM Vs. SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IRRESPECTIVE of the prayer Clauses of the writ petition, on behalf of the petitioner the only relief pressed before me at the time of hearing is that petitioner on his re-appointment with the respondent No. 1 on 27.01.1993 should get the basic pay of Rs. 1410 and not the scale of Rs. 930-1410-2010 as granted by the appointment letter.

(2.) ON behalf of the petitioner to claim the benefit of the basic pay of Rs. 1410 reliance is placed upon the office order of the respondent No. 1 dated 16.03.1990 and the relevant portion of which reads as under:

(3.) IT was therefore necessary for the petitioner to plead that what was his pay when he first ordinarily retired from the respondent No. 1 on 08.11.1983. Petitioner also had to state whether he was in a Class III post or not. A reading of the writ petition shows that no details are given as to what was the pay of the petitioner when he firstly was compulsorily retired on 08.11.1983. Only that pay is given in terms of the circular dated 16.03.1990, which the petitioner drew when he was first compulsorily retired. In case the petitioner was lower than the Class-III employee then petitioner had to be put one stage below the Class-III employee at the time of his re-employment. No facts are however found in the writ petition on all these aspects. Therefore, simply making of representation cannot help the petitioner because petitioner cannot get the alleged benefit as claimed unless facts are pleaded to show as to how he satisfied the factual requirements as contained in the circular dated 16.03.1990.