HARJOT SHAH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Harjot Shah Singh, retired Superintending Engineer of Punjab Irrigation Department, in this petition seeks writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash the orders for the recovery of pensionary/terminal benefits contained in Annexures P-15 to P-18 and also to fix his pay at Rs. 5450/- from 9.9.1988 with the consequential benefits. Brief facts of the case reveal that after serving for a period of 39 years and holding various posts and assignments as an Engineer, the petitioner retired on 31.12.1989 as Superintending Engineer on superannuation from the service of Punjab Government. On 1.1.1986, when the last revision of pay scales took place in Punjab, petitioner was drawing Rs. 2300/- per month in the then existing scale as an Executive Engineer. He got the biennial increment on 1.1.1988 raising his pay from Rs. 2300/- to Rs. 2400/- per month. Thereafter, he was promoted as Superintending Engineer in the scale of Rs. 2100/- 2500 on 12.1.1988. On his promotion, his pay was raised from Rs. 2400/- to Rs. 2500/- per month. He came in the selection grade of Rs. 2000/2300 as Executive Engineer vide Punjab Government letter dated 12.3.1988 with effect from 12.12.1985. His pay was, thus, required to be re-fixed as Executive Engineer on 12.12.1985. Vide notification dated 9.9.1988, the Punjab Government revised the pay scales of its employees w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The case of the petitioner is that in so far as pay scales of Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer, are concerned, the Schedule called 'Second Schedule' depicting hike in the pay scales was issued only on 20.1.1989. On account of non-fixation of his pay in the new scale as Superintending Engineer, petitioner continued to draw his salary in the unrevised scale, i.e. Rs. 2100-2500, till his retirement. However, feeling that his pay was not being fixed in the revised scale because of absence of formal option, which was to be exercised by the employees between 1.1.1986 and 31.12.1987 in accordance with Rule 5(2) of the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay Rules, 1988, has submitted a representation to the Government on 8.3.1989. It was, inter alia, pleaded therein that he had offered for the revised pay scale from 1.1.1986 before 13.1.1988, the date of his promotion as Superintending Engineer and non-grant of hike in the pay scale had put him to loss of Rs. 450/- per month. He, thus, sough relaxation of the Rule, mentioned above, as he had opted for revised pay scale on 13.1.1988, i.e. immediately after his promotion as Superintending Engineer, It requires to be mentioned that it is only 12 days relaxation, which is involved, in exercising the option for the revised pay scale. When be heard nothing in the matter, he sent reminder on 28.3.1989 with a copy of the same to the Chief Engineer as also to the Secretary, Irrigation and Power. There was still no response from the authority and meanwhile he superannuated on 31.12.1989. It was then that he submitted yet another representation dated 20.9.1989 to the Secretary, Irrigation and Power. Copy of this representation was sent to other concerned officers. This was followed by another reminder dated 14.2.1990 and yet another reminder dated 27.3.1990. On one of the representations filed by him, the Chief Engineer recommended his case while observing "the perusal of the representation and enclosed table reveals that this is fit case for favourable consideration by the Government and, therefore, it is recommended that Shri Harjot Shah Singh may be allowed to opt for new scales w.e.f. 13.1.1986 after his promotion as Superintending Engineer with pay fixation benefits." This strong recommendation of the Chief Engineer did not stir the respondents, thus completing the petitioner to send yet another remainder on 9.11.1989. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the then Secretary, Irrigation and Power, with representation dated 22.5.1990 on which the following note was made by the concerned officer "Please examine. We should reply to him. We may have to protect his pay at least."

(2.) In the written statement that has been filed on behalf of the respondents, claim of the petitioner has been sought to be contested merely on the ground that the petitioner was supposed to give his option for the revised pay scale within four months from 9.9.1988 and since he opted for revision in the pay scale after the said date, he is not entitled to the same. Replication has been filed in this case, wherein it has been pleaded that other Superintending Engineers, namely, J.M. Grover and Manmohan Singh who were likewise promoted with the petitioner on the same date, i.e. 12.1.1988, as Superintending Engineer and likewise opted for revised pay scale, were allowed revision in the pay scale and in their cases rigour of the Rule, i.e. Rule 5(2) of the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 , was relaxed in view of the provisions contained in Rule 12 of the said Rules and the respondents while dealing with the case of the petitioner in different way had discriminated against him.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the State as also going through the records of the case, I am of the considered view that cause of the petitioner is meritorious and, therefore, his petition deserves to be succeed. This Court in view of the averments made in the replication would not like to go into the question whether it was necessary for the petitioner to opt for revision of pay scale before the stipulated date. It is not disputed that the persons similarly situated, i.e. Sarvshri J.M. Grover and Manmohan Singh, who, too were promoted on the post of Superintending Engineer on the same very date when the petitioner was promoted and had likewise opted for revision in pay scale after the stipulated period, were allowed revision in the pay scale as notified on 9.9.1988. In their cases, the Government chose to relax the rigour of Rule 5(2) of the Rules aforesaid, but on the same very ground on which relaxation was granted to the aforesaid two persons, the petitioner was denied the desired relief. It requires to be mentioned that wherever the case of the petitioner was dealt with, a recommendation was made by the concerned officers in his favour, but for no reason whatsoever his case was not considered favourably. If the respondents are permitted to deal with the case of the petitioner in different way, it would certainly amount to discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. While not permitting that course to the respondents, this Court would like to direct and hereby directs that petitioner's pay be fixed in accordance with the pay scale notified on 9.9.1988. Further, his pension and other post retiral benefits be computed in accordance with the revised pay scale. Let the direction, mentioned above, be carried out within a period of one month from today. This writ petition is, thus, allowed. No costs. Dasti.