J.S.GORAYA Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, UTTARAKHAND CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS FEDERATION LTD.AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an Additional Cane Marketing Officer in Uttarakhand Co-operative Sugar Mills Federation Ltd., Dehradun. The petitioner was promoted on the aforesaid post on 6.3.1991 along with two other per­sons, namely, Singhara Singh and Shamim Khan. As per the prevailing policy for the Uttarakhand Co-operative Sugar Mills Fed­eration Ltd., an Additional Cane Market­ing Officer was to be given a time bound pay-scale after ten years' of service. Consequently, vide order 10.11.2006, the pe­titioner as well as other similarly situated persons, as referred above, were given time bound pay-scale of Rs. 8550-14600 with effect from 7.3.2001 i.e. from the date they had completed ten years of service. All the same, this order was subsequently revoked. However, later by order dated 27.12.2008 the order of time bound pay scale was re­vived in favour of Shinghara Singh and Shamim Khan but not in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying that he should be granted the time bound pay scale along with the arrears of the time bound pay scale and other dues from 7.3.2001 which have been given to the other similarly situated persons.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit, the sole ground taken by respondent no. 1 i.e. Uttarakhand Cooperative Sugar Mills Fed­eration Ltd. for not granting the time bound pay scale to the petitioner is that in 2003, there was some enquiry pending against the petitioner and as such, this time bound pay scale cannot be given to the petitioner. This is the sole ground taken by respond­ent no. 1. This ground, however, in the considered opinion of this Court is wholly untenable because as per the admitted position the petitioner was entitled for time bound pay scale with effect from 7.3.2001. Therefore, anything subsequent to 7.3.2001 is of little relevance and definitely cannot be a reason for denying the time bound pay scale to the petitioner. Admittedly the sole reason for denying the pay scale to the petitioner is that an enquiry in the year 2003 was pending against the pe­titioner which is later in time when the pe­titioner became entitled for the time bound pay scale. Moreover, when other similarly situated persons, namely, Shinghara Singh and Shamim Khan were granted time bound pay scale, there was no reason for denying the same to the petitioner.

(3.) NO order as to costs.