AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a Junior Commissioned Officer in the Indian Army and retired as such in the year 1974. As an ex-serviceman he joined on a Class IV post in the office of Director Tourism Department, Punjab respondent No. 2. At that time his basic pay was Rs. 168/-. Rule 7.20 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules , Volume II, (hereinafter called the Rules) provides for the fixation of pay of ex-serviceman who are re-employed in service of the Punjab Government. Rule 7.20(a) of the Rules deals with the fixation of pay of the Commissioned Officer in the Military service who obtains an employment in Civil Department after having been granted military pension; whereas Rule 7.20(b) of the Rules deals with Junior commissioned Officers or other ranks formerly in military service who obtain employment in Civil Department after having granted military pension. Rule 7.20(b) of the Rules, which is relevant for the purpose of this case, is quoted below :-

(2.) Vide notification dated 6th April, 1984, published in the Punjab Government, Part I, dated 20th April, 1984, Note I-B was inserted after Note I-A to Clauses (a) and (b) in Rule 7.20 of the Rules. Note 1-B reads as under :-

(3.) The petitioner's case is that the above mentioned amendment was never circulated in the office where he was working and he was never apprised of the same, but after coming to know from his own sources about the above said amendment to Rule 7.20, he sent his option for fixation of his pay under the new pay fixation formula on 29th August, 1984, vide annexure P-2. All these years, he had been making representations to the concerned Authorities to act on his option conveyed on 29th August, 1984 and to fix the pay under the new pay fixation formula. Ultimately, vide his representation date 4th August, 1989 (Annexure P-9) he again submitted that there is no fault of his in not opting within four months of the insertion of Note 1-B, and, therefore, his option should be acted upon. The concerned Authorities, however, rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 14th September, 1989 (Annexure P-10) and informed him that "The Government regrets its inability to agree to the proposal." This led to the petitioner's filing the present writ petition.