IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.8041 of 2011 Date of decision : 6.5.2011 Ram Parkash ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.R.N.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition praying for grant of Higher Standard Pay Scale and 2nd Assured Career Progression Scale by pleading that he was entitled to the same on account of the fact that he completed 20 years of regular satisfactory service and thus this benefit should be granted to him and the consequent pensionary benefits be revised appropriately. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Upholster on 24.10.1980 and his services were regularised with effect from 24.6.1981 vide order dated 6.10.1981 attached along with the petition as Annexure P-2. A perusal of the material on record reveals that the date of regularisation of the petitioner was changed on reappraisal by the respondent authorities in the year 2007 and as a consequence thereto his pay was revised and reduced accordingly. The petitioner prays that since deduction of pay is a recurring loss, he is entitled to invoke the C.W.P.No.8041 of 2011 -2- jurisdiction of this Court even three years after the said adverse order was passed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on due consideration, I find that re-fixation of pay effected vide order Annexure P-4 in the year 2008 was a mere consequence of the order passed by the respondent authorities rescheduling the date of regularisation of the petitioner which order has not been assailed by the petitioner so far. As observed earlier, Annexure P-4 is merely a consequence of the order by which the date of regularisation of the petitioner was rescheduled and till the time that order stands, the petitioner would be precluded from making valid challenge to the impugned order Annexure P-4. A perusal of Annexure P-4 also reveals that the petitioner had been afforded an opportunity by issuing a show cause notice and thereafter the said order was passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he be permitted to withdraw the instant petition to make a challenge to the order of 2007. I am afraid, it is too late in the day to consider this prayer more so when four years have passed since the passing of the order which was adverse to the order against which he did not prefer any proceedings even though employees similarly situated to him did so successfully. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 6.5.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss