CWP No.10647 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.10647 of 1990 DATE OF DECISION: April 20, 2011 SAT PAL SINGH ...PETITIONER VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: NONE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. S.S. GORIPURIA, DAG, HARYANA. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. There is no representation for the petitioner and I proceed to examine the case with the assistance of the counsel appearing for the State. The writ petition is for issuance of mandamus to fix the scale of pay for the petitioner at `1400-2600/- attached to the post of Accountant in which post the petitioner has been officiating on deputation. His parent Department was Development & Panchayats where his scale of pay was `950-1500/-. The increased scale of pay is claimed by the petitioner to the post on deputation in the office of District Collector, Rural Development Fund, Ambala. The basis for claim of the petitioner was, like him two other persons had been officiating on the same post on deputation and they have been granted salary in the scale of `1400-2600/-. 2. The statement in defence by the State is two fold; (i) the petitioner, when he expressed his consent to officiate on deputation, had CWP No.10647 of 1990 -2- accepted that he will draw the same scale of pay as he was drawing in his parent cadre and he would also be paid deputation allowance, (ii) In response to the plea by the petitioner that two other persons were drawing the scale attached to the post of Accountant on the deputation post, the respondents would point out that those persons were already drawing the salary in the scale of `1400-2600/- under the parent Department. 3. In view of the contentions made, the petitioner cannot have a relief in the manner sought for. The petitioner is not present to explain as to how his case could merit acceptance in view of the objections taken by the State. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. April 20, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE