GURMAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel inter alia contends that the equation has been created between the post of Veterinary Officer and Agricultural Officer/Horticulture Officers in CWP No.23138 of 2010 titled Dr. Naresh Kumar Kataria and others vs. State of Punjab and others decided on January 05, 2012 when the State before the Court accepted the parity but with the rider that the petitioners shall not be entitled to any arrears or pay of fixation of pay on the notional basis from the due date(s). The learned Single Judge while disposing of the matter held that withholding of arrears of revised pay was justified but not granting benefit of fixation of pay on notional basis from the due date(s) was unjustified and to this last extent, a direction was issued to re-fix pension etc. Similar orders have been passed in other cases. The petitioner is a party to previous CWP No.9936 of 2012 (P-6) which was disposed of in terms of the decision in CWP No.23138 of 2010 (P-5) supra. The State while conceding parity between Veterinary Officers and Horticulture Officers/Agriculture Officers (the petitioner is a Horticulture Officer) has denied the claim of the petitioner on the specious plea that the three tier pay-scale applicable to Veterinary Officers which is to be applied in the case of Agricultural Officers/Horticulture Officer at the stage of 4, 9 & 14 years cannot be granted to the present petitioner for the reason that the service record pertaining to ACRs of the officer has not been found good in terms of the criteria prescribed. This is stated in the order dated March 13, 2013. The order has been passed by the Director Horticulture, Punjab. Though there may be some delay in approaching the Court against the order dated March 13, 2013 but that does not mean the right to relief stands extinguished by bar of limitation as the cause of action is still within the active range of maintaining a civil suit, if brought for the same purpose. It has not been explained in the impugned order as to how ACRs can be linked with pay-scales which are applicable automatically on completion of requisite period of time and the stages fixed at 4, 9 & 14 years and there is nothing present in the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 linking ACRs to denial of higher pay-scale.

(2.) It may be noted that Agricultural Officers/Horticulture Officers were entitled to different scales of pay at stages 8 & 16 years of service unlike the 4, 9 & 14 scheme.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the impugned order, the petitioner has filed representations to the State Government questioning for correction of the error in the fallacious assumption applied in denying the just claim of the petitioner but that has met with a stony response. The petitioner is a retired person and may not have had the agility, energy or the financial means to approach this Court for the vindication of his rights which in this day and age involve considerable expense often out of the reach of the common man. In any case, he remains within the range of maintainability of, remedy against the impugned order in the action brought in 2015 to vindicate the grievance.