BAL KRISHAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who retired as Junior Technician on 31.7.2008, has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 15.7.2011, whereby the representations dated 3.9.2010 and 10.11.2010 (Annexures P-6 and P-7) filed by him claiming higher scale of pay, were rejected.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Pump Operator on 1.8.1974 in the Department of Public Health on regular basis. On superannuation, he retired on 31.7.2008. After his retirement, he represented to the authorities vide letters dated 3.9.2010 and 10.11.2010 seeking re-fixation of his pay from the date he joined service. Thereafter, he approached this court by filing CWP No. 364 of 2011. The petition was disposed of on 10.1.2011 with a direction to the respondents therein for considering the representations of the petitioner. It is the order passed on the representations, which is impugned before this court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of the report of Punjab Pay Commission for the year 1967-68, the petitioner, being Matriculate with two years diploma, was entitled to higher scale of pay of Rs. 140-300 as against Rs. 110-180 at the time of his appointment, but the same was not given to the petitioner. Some other employees challenged the action of the State before this court by filing 2008(3) S.C.T. 753 : CWP No. 10759 of 1990 Rajinder Pal Gautam and others Vs. State of Punjab and others. The same was allowed on 30.5.2008. When the petitioner came to know about the same, a representation was made on 3.9.2010. Another representation was made on 10.11.2010, however, the same have been arbitrarily rejected by mentioning that the petitioner was not having qualification prescribed for higher scale at the relevant time, as he was merely middle pass with one year ITI course, which is factually incorrect. He further submitted that the cause of action arose to the petitioner only after the judgment was given by this court granting similar benefits to other employees. He further submitted that in CWP No. 21394 of 2010 Harbans Singh and others Vs. The State of Punjab and others, decided on 28.1.2011 , this court directed grant of similar benefits to some other employees in terms of the judgment of this court in Rajinder Pal Gautam's case (supra).