IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3968 of 2003 Date of Decision: March 3,2008 Om Parkash Khurana ......................................................... Petitioner Versus Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, and others ......... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Present: Mr. N.S.Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral) The petitioner has prayed that directions be issued to the respondents to step up/refix his pay equivalent to his junior i.e. Jeet Singh in the cadre of Head Clerks in view of the instructions dated 20.10.1980 (Annexure P-13). The petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the Public Works Department (Electricity Branch) on 15.1.1953. He was promoted as Upper Division Clerk in February 1964 and was further promoted as Circle Assistant in October 1964. The petitioner was promoted as Head Clerk on 28.10.1969 and he joined as such on 3.3.1970. The petitioner was at Sr. No.82 in the seniority list of Head Clerks whereas Jeet Singh was at Sr. No.83 and, thus, the petitioner was senior to Jeet Singh, but despite this fact Jeet Singh was drawing more pay than the petitioner. The aforementioned seniority is admitted by the respondents as is clear from Annexure P-3 i.e. letter dated 25.3.1988 issued by the Director, Hydel Designs Organization, Chandigarh. The petitioner submitted a representation for removal of the pay anomaly and prayed that he be given same pay as equivalent to his junior Jeet Singh. The case of the petitioner was recommended by the Director, Hydel Designs Organization vide Annexure P-4. It was observed that “the pay of Shri O.P.Khurana is required to be refixed under Rule 4.95 (c) which is proposed to be done as under”. C.W.P. No. 3968 of 2003 [ 2 ] It is the case of the petitioner that despite the fact that the petitioner was senior to Jeet Singh and despite the case of the petitioner being recommended by the Director, Hydel Designs Organization, the pay of the petitioner has not been re-fixed and has not been brought at par with Jeet Singh. It is contended that the aforementioned pay anomaly in the pay of the petitioner be removed and he be given the same pay as that of Jeet Singh. The respondents vide the impugned order Annexure P-12 have, however, rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that his claim for deemed date of promotion as Head Clerk with effect from 28.10.1969 is belated and time barred. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was throughout claiming pay fixation and was not claiming deemed date of promotion as he always remained senior to Jeet Singh and, therefore, the order Annexure P-12 is liable to be set aside. A perusal of the recommendations made by the Director, Hydel Designs Organization, Annexure P-4 shows that not only was the petitioner senior to Jeet Singh but his case had also been recommended with regard to giving him the benefit of pay fixation as per Rule 4.95 (c) of P.S.E.B Main Service Regulation Vol.I Part-I by the Director, Hydel Designs Organization. The manner in which the pay of the petitioner was required to be fixed was also given in Annexure P-4. Apart from the above, as per Regulation 4.3 (c) of the PSEB Main Service Regulations Vol.I Part-I where a Board employee on promotion could not join his new post due to administrative reasons than his pay ought to be fixed from the date his junior was promoted and had joined on the said post. Sub clause (i) of the PSEB Main Service Regulations Vol.I Part-I is reproduced as under:- “i) Where a Board employee on promotion could not join his new post due to administrative reasons his pay should be fixed from the date and hour of his junior joining the promoted post and count the period between the date and hour of his joining to the date and hour when his junior joined as such, for increment in the promoted post in accordance with Regulation 4.14 (2) of PSEB, MSR Vol.I, Part-I.” C.W.P. No. 3968 of 2003 [ 3 ] In the instant case, although the petitioner was senior to Jeet Singh and was promoted to the post of Head Clerk on 28.10.1969 but the petitioner had joined on 3.3.1970 whereas Jeet Singh had joined as Head Clerk on 17.10.1969 but as the petitioner had joined as Head Clerk after Jeet Singh, hence, he was not given the same pay scale as was given to Jeet Singh. The petitioner being senior to Jeet Singh was obviously entitled to the same pay scale as that of Jeet Singh. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner could not join the post as he was not relieved from his earlier post and he had made separate representations so that he could be relieved. The moment the petitioner was relieved from his earlier post of Assistant Revenue Accountant, he joined his new place of posting as Head Clerk. From the aforementioned discussion, it is clear that the petitioner is senior to Jeet Singh and was entitled to same pay scale as Jeet Singh. The respondents have misconstrued the representation of the petitioner as according to them the petitioner was claiming deemed date of promotion as Head Clerk whereas the petitioner had been claiming removal of pay anomaly and re-fixation of pay equivalent to his junior Jeet Singh. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to refix the pay of the petitioner equivalent to his junior Jeet Singh in the cadre of Head Clerk with effect from the date Jeet Singh was given more pay than the petitioner. As the petitioner had retired long back, therefore, his pension be also revised accordingly. The entire arrears be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 3.3.2008 ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) Rupi JUDGE