SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The counsel for the petitioners and the respondents are agreed that this petition can be disposed of by giving categoric instructions to the Government of Punjab for considering the case of the petitioners in accordance with the averments contained in the written statement. The Government of Punjab while filing written statement through Shri S.K. Sandhu, I.A.S. Director, State Transport, Punjab Chandigarh has categorically stated that the new rules known as the Punjab Roadways (Ministerial) State Service Class-III (First Amendment) Rules, 1999 have been gazetted on 28.1.1999 after having been notified on 27.1.1999. It has also been stated that on the basis of the report of the 2nd Pay Commission and Department of Finance vide letter dated 22.2.1980, the posts held by the petitioners were merged into the posts of Clerks and a Joint Seniority list for the purpose of declaring/granting Senior Scale with effect from 1.1.1978 was issued vide letter dated 19.2.1986 to all the General Managers of Punjab Roadways. It has been further averred that out of the total 52 petitioners, 10 have already been granted pay scale of Rs. 500-800 after giving them designation of Senior Clerks bifurcating the cadre of Clerks in ratio of 50 :50 and the remaining 42 petitioners could not be allowed the designation of Senior Clerks on 1.1.1978 as they were junior in the order of Seniority. It has been further stated that it is evident from the seniority list finalised on 19.2.1986 that all the petitioners were not included in the cadre strength of clerks as alleged by the petitioners and all benefits will be allowed to the petitioners on finalization/publication of service rules. Since the rules have been notified and gazetted as stated above, learned A.A.G. Punjab has stated that the cases of all the petitioners shall be dealt with accordingly. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that the petitioners have already been given requisite benefits with effect from 1.1.1978, however, the petitioners are claiming benefit only with effect from 1.1.1986.

(2.) In view of the above, I consider it appropriate that as per the stand taken by the respondents in the written statement, it shall be appropriate if respondent No. 2 is allowed to decide the reliefs to which the petitioners are entitled to in accordance with the rules which have come into force now. The stand taken by the respondents in the written statement in respective paras is reproduced as under:-

(3.) The respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the representation dated 19.5.1996 copy Annexure P.11. However, learned counsel for the petitioners is further entitled to substantiate the said representation by way of filing an additional representation within a period of one month from today. Respondent No. 2 shall decide the said representation alongwith additional representation, if any, filed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order through the petitioner or from this court whichever is earlier. It shall be appreciated if the said representations are decided by way of passing speaking orders and in case the representations of the petitioners are accepted, the petitioners shall be entitled to all consequential benefits which shall flow therefrom and the arrears shall be restricted to three years and two months before the date of filing the petition. This petition is disposed of with the above observations.