KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to consider and revise the pay of the petitioner by stepping up his pay at par with respondent No. 4, who is junior to him.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined service as Helper (Electrician) in the Transport Department, Punjab, on January 9, 1978, whereas respondent No. 4 joined as such on November 20, 1978. Petitioner was suspended on July 5, 1979, and ultimately, he was terminated on August 2, 1982. He challenged his termination order by filing an appeal. While deciding that appeal on March 1, 1988, Divisional Manager, Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh, modified order passed by the punishing authority and ordered that the appointment of the petitioner be treated afresh as Helper and his past service would stand forfeited. It was further ordered that in case any complaint was received within one year from the date of passing of that order, petitioner's services would be terminated. Petitioner challenged that order by filing a civil suit, which was decreed on December 9, 1992 holding both the orders passed by the punishing authority on August 2, 1982 and appellate authority on March 1, 1988, to be illegal and improper and it was ordered that the petitioner be restored to the same position where he was at the time of termination of his service. On June 27, 1994, Divisional Manager, Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh, reconsidered the matter and declared the petitioner to be innocent. His suspension order was declared illegal and period spent during suspension was converted into duty and the period of his absence was also ordered to be considered as duty period. After his re-instatement in service, petitioner came to know that person junior to him had been promoted in the meantime. He sent many representations claiming that he be given all benefits towards pay, promotion etc. as have been granted to his junior respondent No. 4. Relief was given to him so far as promotion was concerned by promoting him on April 15, 1998, but rest of the benefits were not allowed to him. He again made a representation. When nothing was done, he filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Upon notice, respondents No. 1 to 3 appeared and filed written-statement wherein factual position has been admitted. It has been stated specifically that the case of the petitioner for seniority and promotion has been sent to respondent No. 2 for refixation of pay etc.