PARVEEN JINDAL Vs. REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer of petitioners is for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant revised pay scales to them which stems from the following facts.

(2.) It is an admitted position that all the petitioners were appointed on the posts of Accounts Clerk/Stenographers and Manager Accounts on various dates as duly reflected in paragraph 3 of the petition. It is also admitted position that the petitioners submitted resignations on various dates from October 7, 1988 to March 21, 1990 which are duly reflected in paragraph 4 of this petition. It is also admitted position that the pay scales of employees of respondent No. 2 were revised by the Government and the same were adopted by the Milkfed vide order dated June 5, 1989 with effect from January 1, 1986. The Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Limited respondent adopted the recommendations of Third Punjab Pay Commission as accepted by the Punjab Government and communicated by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies Punjab respondent No. 1 vide order dated June 2, 1989 (Annexure P.10). A specific direction was given to the Milkfed Head Office as well as District Co-operative Milk Unions etc. that the recommendations of Third Punjab Pay Commission be implemented and pay of the employees in the revised pay scales be fixed.

(3.) It is also admitted position that the pay of the petitioners was also fixed in the revised pay scales by various orders dated August 18, 1989, May 24, 1989, August 18, 1989 and August 11, 1989 repsectively. It is also admitted position that the pay scale for the post of Accounts Clerk on which post petitoner No. 1 was appointed was revised to Rs. 1350-2400 and that the revised pay scale of Stenographers is Rs. 1200-2100 plus Rs. 60/- as special pay and that of Manager Accounts was revised to Rs. 3000-4500. The case of the petitioners is that they have even approached the respondents a number of times so as to be paid the arrears of revised pay scales but no action at all has been taken in the matter. It is further the case that even arrears of leave encashment have not been paid to them. To highlight the highhandedness of the respondents, the case of petitioners is also that revised pay scales have been paid to number of persons, reference of which has been given in paragraph 10 of the petition, even though there was no distinction in their case and that of the persons mentioned above as they too like the petitioners had left the service of Milkfed. The petitioners even sent notices for redressal of their grievances but the obstinate attitude adopted by them had left the petitioner with on choice but for to seek an appropriate writ or direction from this Court.