CWP(T) No. 6777 of 2008 01.09.2010 Present: Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State. Petitioner made a representation to the respondents (Annexure A-8) which reads as under:- To The Supdt. Engineer 2nd Circle, HPPWD Shimla. Sub: Stepping up of pay in respect of Sh. Laiq Ram Work Inspector. Ref: Your office letter No. SE-II-26-I/99-7805 dt. 12.1.2000. Shri Laiq Ram W/C mate re-designated as work Mistry from work charged Mate in the pay scale of Rs. 750-30-250- 1160-40-1320-45-1410 vide your office letter No. SE-II-96- 16/94-4779 dated 2.7.94 and he has joined in the new post on 4.7.94. Therefore, the pay of Shri Laiq Ram work Mistry was fixed at Rs.1020/- PM on ……… with next date of increment 1.7.95. Benefit of 22(c) was not given to the official as the official was not promoted. Now Shri Mast Ram Road Inspector is drawing higher pay from him therefore, the case of stepping up. It is, therefore, requested that the case of stepping up may kindly be considered favourably. Service books of Shri Laiq Ram, Work Inspector ….. and Shri Mast Ram, Work Inspector sent herewith for necessary action at your end please. Sd/- Executive Engineer Theog Division, HPPWD” 2. The said representation was rejected and the order was communicated by the Superintending Engineer to the Executive -2- Engineer in terms of letter dated 25.5.2000 (Annexure A-9) which reads as under:- “To The Executive Engineer Theog Division HPPWD Theog. Sub: Stepping up of pay in respect of Sh. Laiq Ram Work Inspector. Ref: Your letter No. THD/E-7/99-2000-1120-06 dated 22.1.2000. The subject cited stepping up case has been considered in this office and the same has not been found upto the mark hence rejected. Therefore, the promotion i.e. redesignation in the of Sh. Laiq Ram as work Inspector has been challenged in the court of law by Shri Mast Ram OA No. 1066/96. The service books of both of the work Inspectors as received are returned herewith. Sd/- Supdt. Engineer. 2nd Circle, HPPWD Shimla.” 3. This Court called the record of O.A. No. 1066 of 1996. Vide order dated 16.11.2007 the said O.A. stands dismissed and the order according benefit to Sh. Liaq Ram were upheld by the Tribunal. 4. In this background the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that her client shall be content if a direction is issued to the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s case in view of the subsequent developments which have taken place as the benefits could not be accorded for the reason that the matter was subjudice. -3- 5. Under these circumstances the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s case afresh, in accordance with law. While taking such decision the respondents shall also taken into account the observations made by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1066 of 1996. Necessary action be positively taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. September 1, 2010 (PK)