IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.282 of 2008 and L.P.A.NO.69 of 2008 (O&M) DATE OF ORDER: 18.3.2008 C.I.T.C.O and Another ....Petitioner(s) through Sh. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate Versus Ram Murti Sharma .....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH .*.*. 1. Whether Reports of Local Newspapers 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? VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) C.M.No.282 of 2008 For the reasons stated in the application, 81 days' delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. L.P.A. No.69 of 2008 (O&M) Appeal has been filed against order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition has been allowed and the appellants have been directed to grant regular pay scale of Rs.950-1500/- to the respondent for the period from 19.4.1989 to 14.12.1989. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the respondent having accepted the condition of payment of consolidated salary per month without any protest at the time of his appointment, he could not file a writ petition after delay of seven years of such appointment challenging the said condition and asking for regular pay scale. The basic argument of learned counsel for the appellants is mis- conceived. In this case, it is an admitted fact that requisition sent to the employment exchange on 3.2.1989 by the appellant categorically postulated L.P.A.NO.69 of 2008 #2# that the post of T.V/Audio Operator was in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500/-. It is also an admitted fact that name of the respondent was sponsored by the employment exchange in pursuant to the aforesaid requisition sent. Post carrying particular scale was advertised or requisitioned from the employment exchange. How the respondent, who was sponsored by the employment exchange could have been appointed on a consolidated pay, it is not understandable? It shows arbitrary and unreasonable approach of the employer, which is a government undertaking. Once the respondent was appointed pursuant to sponsorship of his name by the employment exchange against a post carrying pay scale of Rs.950-1500/-, he could not have been given appointment on a consolidated salary and he was entitled to the pay scale attached to the post. The learned Single Judge has rightly relied on the judgment of this Court passed in CWP No.7269 of 1996, titled Darshan Singh and Others v. CITCO and another, decided on 10.11.1997. Therefore, argument of the appellant that respondent has approached the court after seven years, is without any basis. Employer-appellant ought to have given the pay scale, which the post carried. There is no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. ( VIJENDER JAIN ) CHIEF JUSTICE March 18, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE