CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18473 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 03 ,2011 Satish Sharma .....Petitioner VERSUS Maharishi Dayanand Univer sity, Rohtak and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Ravi Kaant, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. S. S. Patter, DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) The petitioner, who was working as Foreman (Press) in Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, has filed this writ petition, seeking direction for quashing of orders dated 14.7.2003 (Annexure P-4) and 12.12.2005 (Annexure P-11). The request of the petitioner for grant of pay scale of `5500-9000 has been declined through these orders. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18473 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: The petitioner would submit that the same pay scale is being allowed to Foreman working in the University Press or the Government Press but still, the petitioner has not been allowed this scale and is given pay scale of `5000-7850. The petitioner had earlier submitted a representation, Annexure P-5, to the authorities to re-consider and grant him the pay scale of `5500-9000 with effect from 3.3.2001. The petitioner was apprised that a recommendation in this regard has been made to the Government. The petitioner thereafter had filed Civil Writ Petition No.6832 of 2004, which was disposed of by this Court on 29.4.2004. The petitioner had then submitted a registered notice for grant of equal pay for equal work, which was followed by various reminders. When no action was taken, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No.10484 of 2005. This writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass a speaking order. Pursuant to the said direction, Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Education Department, has now passed an order, Annexure P-11, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of pay scale of `5500- 9000. While rejecting the claim, it is observed that there is no specific recommendation made by the Registrars' Committee for granting said pay scale to the Foreman. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the report of the Registrars' committee and would refer to that part where the Committee has recommended pay scale of `5500-9000 to the Foreman working in the University instead of pay scale of `5000- 7850. Counsel accordingly submits that the Financial Commissioner CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18473 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: was totally misconceived in saying that there is no recommendation made in the report of Registrars' Committee, on the basis of which the claim of the petitioner for grant of pay scale of `5500-9000 was rejected. State counsel, when asked to respond, states that the recommendations of Registrars' Committee was received subsequent to the date of decision and accordingly could not be taken note of. In my view, the case for grant of pay scale to the petitioner would require re-consideration. Let the matter be re-considered by the State not only in the light of recommendation made by the Registrars' Committee but any other relevant material, which may need to be taken into consideration while considering the claim of the petitioner for grant of pay scale as claimed. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. February 03,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE