KHEM CHAND Vs. SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER FOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as a Hawaldar in the Indian Army. He retired from the defence service with effect from 30 -9 -1977. At the time of his retirement, his basic pay in the Army was Rs. 333/ - per month and he was getting over -all Rs. 495/ - per month as his salary. After his retirement, the petitioner was sanctioned the pension @ Rs. 133/ - per month and he was given appointment as a Watchman with the Food Corporation of India on 11.7.1978. He joined the service as Watchman with the Food Corporation of India on 12.7.78. He sought voluntary retirement in the year 1992. At the time of initial appointment with the Food Corporation of India, he was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 210 -4 -250 -5 -290/ - alongwith other allowances. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that he was working as Hawaldar in the Indian Army where from he retired on 30.9.77, and the post of Hawaldar is equivalent to the post of Security Officer under the respondent and, therefore, he should have been given re -employment by the respondent on the post of Security Officer, which is equivalent to the post of Hawaldar in the Indian Army. Giving appointment to him at a lower level has resulted in reduction of his pay and his prestige. The case of the respondent, on the other hand, is that the petitioner was offered the post of Watchman by the respondent and he accepted the same in the year 1978, and now after a lapse of about fourteen years of service, when he retired, he cannot be allowed to raise this grievance. The further contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that as per Chapter III, Para 1 -B, the petitioner, at the time of re -employment, was entitled for fixation of his pay at the minimum stage in which as individual can be employed, which was granted to the petitioner and which he accepted at the time of entering in the service. Now, after a delay of about fourteen years, he cannot be allowed to re -open the case and the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on this count alone.

(2.) I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) IN this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.