Civil Writ Petition No. 13918 of 1991 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 13918 of 1991 Date of Decision: February 24, 2010 Jagdish Mittar ......... Petitioner versus The State of Haryana .......... Respondent 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Ms. Deepinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Pattar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner in the present petition under Article 226 /227 of the Constitution of India has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing decision Annexure P-2 whereby the benefit of revised scale was granted w.e.f. 1.5.1990. The petitioner claims that benefit of revised pay scale be given from 1.1.1986. The petitioner retired as a Treasury Officer on 31.10.1989 when his basic pay was Rs.3200/-. Vide notification Annexure P-1 dated 6.10.1988, Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1987 were amended and entry against serial No. 10 and 11 under column No.4 of the First Schedule in Part 'A' was substituted with letters signs and figures Civil Writ Petition No. 13918 of 1991 [2] Rs.2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500. The petitioner claims that on account of modification of pay scales vide aforesaid notification, the basis pay of the petitioner is to be fixed at Rs.3500/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and consequently his pension is liable to be refixed. In reply, it has been pointed out that the Pay Anomalies Commission has made some recommendations but the Council of Ministers in its meeting held on 14.05.1990 have decided to modify the pay scales of some categories of employees. It is not a case of removal of anomaly. Therefore, the benefit of revised pay scale to the employees such as category of Treasury Officer was granted w.e.f. 1.5.1990. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and consequently the revised pension. A perusal of Annexure P-2 relied upon by the petitioner shows that the representation of the Employees Association was considered and it was decided to modify the pay scales of some of the posts w.e.f. 1.5.1990. The said circular relied upon by the petitioner shows that it is not a case of pay anomaly. The pay scale was revised by the Council of Ministers in its meeting held on 14.05.1990. Accordingly, granting of such benefit w.e.f. 1.5.1990 cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Dismissed. February 24, 2010 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ks JUDGE