ILAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was issued an appointment letter dated 11.11.1997 to the post of PTI. He joined the said post on 13.11.1997. Batchmates of the petitioner, who were lower in merit to the petitioner, were issued appointment letters as PTI in the year 1993 and in pursuance thereto Krishan Chand and Naveen Parkash joined on 10.03.1993. Benefit of the pay fixation with effect from 10.03.1993 was granted to the petitioner, in the light of C.W.P. No. 9747 of 1997 titled as 'Ilam Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others' filed by the petitioner vide order dated 11.11.1997. This order was passed during the pendency of the writ petition and on passing of the said order, petitioner had withdrawn the said writ petition on 17.10.2001. Petitioner continued in service with the respondents when he received a communication from the respondents dated 14.05.1999, according to which his claim for fixation of his pay notionally with effect from 10.03.1993 was rejected. This was challenged by the petitioner by filing C.W.P. No. 2057 of 2000 titled as 'Ilam Singh Vs. State of Haryana'. This plea of the petitioner was also accepted by the respondents and the claim of notional pay w.e.f. 10.03.1993 was also accepted leading to the withdrawal of the writ petition. Now, when the petitioner has retired on 30.11.2011, in the Pension Payment Order his date of appointment is shown as 13.11.1997 and on that basis his pension has been calculated thus, depriving him of the benefit of the notional fixation of his pay with effect from 10.03.1993 the date when his juniors had joined the service which claim of the petitioner was accepted by the respondents vide order dated 07.09.2000. Counsel contends that the Pension Payment Order fixing the pension of the petitioner is contrary to the decision taken by the Government and that too during the pendency of the writ petition preferred by the petitioner which would amount to violating the undertaking given before this Court by the respondents. Petitioner is claiming a writ of mandamus but has not made a representation to this effect before the respondents claiming the benefit of notional pay fixation with effect from 10.03.1993 which benefit has been denied to the petitioner while fixing his pension.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall submit a representation detailing his claim therein to the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana-Respondent No. 3 within a period of two weeks from today which may be directed to be considered and decided within some specified time.

(3.) Without going into the merits of the case or commenting thereon, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the Director, Secondary Education Haryana-Respondent No. 3 within a period of two weeks from today. If such a representation is made, the same shall be considered and decided by the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana-Respondent No. 3 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation. Decision so taken thereon be conveyed to the petitioner forthwith. In case the petitioner is held entitled to the claim as projected through his representation, consequential benefits be granted to the petitioner within a further period of one month.