IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11521 of 2007 Date of Decision : March 03, 2010. Gurbinderjit Singh Bhatia .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with Mr.Aman Bahri and Mr.Saurabh Arora, Advocates, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab. Mr.R.S.Cheema, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 to 5. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 14.10.2006 (Annexure P-5) whereby his pay has been fixed by the parent Department on his re-patriation. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk-cum-typist in the office of District & Sessions Judge, Patiala, on 11.8.1972. He was subsequently promoted as Senior Assistant on 1.12.1979, followed by his promotion/re-designation as Reader (Assistant) with the District and Sessions Judge (Vigilance), Punjab, Chandigarh. The petitioner was C.W.P.No .11521 of 2007 2 thereafter, sent on deputation with the Punjab Public Service Commission as a Legal Assistant on 14.3.1986 and he served as such till 21.8.2006 when he was repatriated to his parent department, namely, the establishment of the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala. The short grievance of the petitioner is that after he joined his parent department, his pay was liable to be fixed atleast at par with his junior in the parent department who came to be appointed atleast five years after the petitioner's appointment. As the Competent Authority declined the petitioner's request, he has approached this Court. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length and records have been perused. Though respondent Nos.3 to 5 have maintained that pay of the petitioner has been re-fixed strictly as per the rules, yet it is not denied that junior(s) to the petitioner are drawing more pay than him. There can indeed be no dispute that the petitioner is not entitled to draw salary and other monetary benefits which he might have been getting while on deputation with the Punjab Public Service Commission. At the same time, on repatriation to his parent department, his pay cannot be fixed below his junior(s), causing pay anomaly as ruled by a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Lal Aggarwal versus The State of Punjab (1968 S.L.R. 800), in the following words:- “What is intrinsically indicated by the 1next below rule' is that an office out of his regular line C.W.P.No .11521 of 2007 3 (including deputation etc.) is entitled to be promoted to be shown as holding a higher post in the parent department if the Government servant next below him has been so promoted. This rule ensures to the officer within his regular line or serving on deputation in an other department that he shall be restored to the position he would have occupied in his parent department had he not been so deputed. Though the language in which the provisions of Note 4 are couched is rather ambiguous, yet it clearly emerges therefrom that it is directed to protect the interests of an officer who though entitled to officiating promotion cannot in fact avail of the opportunity due to his being, what the rule states as out of the `regular line' or outside the ordinary line of service.” The petitioner has made the following specific averment in his affidavit dated 27.8.2009, which have not been controverted by the respondents :- “5. That a junior of the deponent namely Sh.A.K.Kapila, whose date of entry in service as Clerk-cum-typist is 25.5.1977, is presently posted as a Senior Assistant and on the date of repatriation of the deponent on 21.8.2006, was drawing a salary of Rs.10,980+200/-. 6. That on repatriation, the pay of the deponent has been fixed at Rs.9475/- vide the impugned order dated 14.10.2006 (Annexure P-5) which is much lower than that of his junior. 7. That in terms of seniority list dated 20.5.1988 of Class-III Employees of Sessions Division, Patiala, C.W.P.No .11521 of 2007 4 issued by the Establishment of the District & Sessions Judge, Patiaila, the deponent has been shown at Sr.No.46, whereas Sh.A.K.Kapila has been shown at Sr. No.76. Thus, on repatriation, the deponent was entitled for the benefit of the Next Below Rule as laid down in Note 4 (i) (1) of Rule 4.13 of Punjab Civil Services Rules (Vo.I, Part-I) and his pay should have been fixed at the same stage as that of Sh.A.K.Kapila i.e., Rs.10,980 + 200.” For the reasons aforestated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 14.10.2006 (Annexure P-5) is quashed and the respondents are directed to re-fix the petitioner's pay and bring the same at par with his afore-mentioned junior. The consequential arrears be also paid to the petitioner as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. March 03, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE