SUDARSHAN SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who retired from service on 30.4.2008, has approached this court raising a dispute regarding fixation of his salary alleging that his juniors have been drawing more salary than him. As a consequence thereof, his salary needs to be stepped up to bring it at par with his juniors. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Upper Division Clerk with National Institute of Technical Teachers' Training and Research, Chandigarh on 31.1.1973. He was promoted as Assistant on 21.8.1980 and then as Superintendent on 14.2.1989 in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900, where as one Bhagat Ram was appointed as Upper Division Clerk on 21.8.1974, promoted as Assistant on 2.8.1983 and further as Senior Store Keeper on 28.7.1990 in the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2660. He was thereafter promoted as Superintendent on 7.9.1992 in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900. There were two separate channels of promotion to the post of Superintendent. All along, Bhagat Ram had been drawing salary less than the petitioner, however, still on 7.9.1992, salary of Bhagat Ram was fixed at Rs. 2,060/- per month, whereas at that time the petitioner was being paid Rs. 2,000/- per month. The petitioner immediately represented for stepping up of his pay to bring the same at par with his junior Bhagat Ram. The case was fixed in the meeting of the Board of Governors held on 26.6.1992 and approved. The matter was sent to the Government of India for concurrence, however, the same was rejected vide letter dated 11.10.1993 in totally illegal and arbitrary manner without passing a speaking order, even though pay of one T.S. Giani Superintendent was stepped up to bring the same at par with his junior, namely, J.L. Khanna. The matter was taken up again by the petitioner and the case was recommended by the Institute to the Government of India vide communication dated 21.7.1998. The same was again rejected by the Government of India vide communication dated 2.2.2010. The petitioner thereafter again represented on 22.2.2011 and even got a legal notice served on 18.6.2011. The submission is that firstly the petitioner has been deprived of his legitimate dues during his service career and now as a result of this his pension is also being effected because a person junior to the petitioner had been drawing higher pay all along.

(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that cause of action to raise the grievance arose to the petitioner way back on 11.10.1993 when for the first time the claim made by the petitioner was rejected by respondent No. 1. Since again the petitioner made the representation, though belated, vide communication dated 2.2.2010, while reiterating the earlier decision conveyed vide letter dated 11.10.1993, the claim was rejected. The same was again reiterated on 19.4.2010. The petitioner having already retired from service on 30.4.2008 cannot be permitted to rake up the dead issues at this belated stage.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.