Petitioner, a Social Study Master, sought pay fixation equal to his junior due to higher seniority. The single-judge bench directed the government authority to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation on this matter.
Direction to respondent to decide representation on pay fixation within four months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Writ Petition No.12238 of 2013 { 1 }
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Date of Decision : May 30, 2013
Amarjit Singh
.... PETITIONER
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present : Mr.Ranjit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner joined as a Social Study Master on regular basis with the respondents in the pay scale of 1640-2925. His pay was fixed at 1680/-, which was thereafter fixed on 01.02.1993 at 1730/- in the pay scale of 1640-2925. Junior to him, namely, Sh.Ajaib Singh, who joined service on 05.04.1991, got the pay fixation at `1750 on 01.04.1993, which is higher than of the petitioner, although both the petitioner and respondent No.5-Ajaib Singh are working on the same post and petitioner being senior to respondent No.5, is entitled to stepping up of his pay equal to his junior.
Claiming the said benefit, petitioner has submitted a representation dated 13.08.2012 (Annexure P-3) to the Director, Public Instructions (Secondary Education), Punjab, which representation, till date, has not been responded to. Counsel for the petitioner states that even in the seniority list, which has been issued
Civil Writ Petition No.12238 of 2013 { 2 }
by the respondents, name of the petitioner figured at Sr. No.15404 whereas that of Ajaib Singh at Sr.No.15431.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, at this stage, would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the Director, Public Instructions (Secondary Education), Punjab-respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 13.08.2012 (Annexure P-3) within some specified time.
Without going into the merits of the case or commenting thereon, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Director, Public Instructions (Secondary Education), Punjab respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 13.08.2012 (Annexure P-3) within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The decision, so taken, be conveyed to the petitioner forthwith.
In case the claim of the petitioner is accepted, the consequential benefits, if any, be released to him, in accordance with law, within a further period of two months.
Arrears be restricted to 38 months from the submission of the representation.
In case the claim of the petitioner is not to be accepted, a well-reasoned and speaking order be passed and conveyed to the petitioner forthwith.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE
May 30, 2013 ramesh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to pay fixation equal to his junior on the same post.
Whether a direction should be issued to the respondent to decide the petitioner's representation regarding pay fixation within a specified time.
Amarjit Singh
State of Punjab
Augustine George Masih
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
