SATPAL ARORA Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petitioner has sought for quashing of orders dated 19-1-2002 and 7-6-2003, relating to his pay fixation, issued by the first Respondent, his employer.

(2.) The admitted facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner was directly recruited to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the office of the respondent on 07-04-1982, in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400, later revised to Rs. 950-1500. He was promoted as stenographer, in the grade of Rs. 1200-2040 on 30-01-1987. He was later confirmed to the grade on 01-08-19 87. The petitioner was promoted on temporary basis, to the grade of Rs. 1400 -2300 with effect from 13-12-1993. On 10-05-1996, he represented to the respondent, stating that he had developed severe pain in the back and shoulder joints; he also stated that he was undergoing treatment. The representation went on to mention that the petitioner was medically advised to avoid typing. He therefore requested to be posted back to the initial post of LDC. Whilst representing, the petitioner used the expression reversion for being sent back to the original post of LDC. The respondent, by order dated 09 -08- 1996, accepted the petitioner's request. That order reads as follows:

(3.) The petitioner was the offered appointment in the grade of stenographer on ad-hoc basis for a period of six months, by an order issued in 1997. This was because he had represented against what he termed as wrongful fixation of pay in the scale of lower division clerk. The respondent had fixed him in the scale of LDC at Rs. 1250/- (in the grade of Rs. 950-1500). The petitioner was drawing Rs. 1600/-in the grade of Rs. 1400-2300. Through representations, he claimed the basic salary of Rs. 1500/-being the maximum and the scale of Rs. 950- 1500, the grade of LDC. This representation was made to the respondent on 06-11-2001. The petitioner had claimed fixation at Rs. 1500/-on the basis of Fundamental Rule 22 of the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules, which are admittedly part of the terms and conditions applicable to employees working with the first respondent. The representation was declined by the first impugned order dated 24-01-2002; the first respondent by the order stated as follows: