CWP No.9566 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 09.11.2010 Baldev Arora ... Petitioner Versus Punjab and Haryana High Court ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.TS Dhindsa, Advocate, for the respondent. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioner was initially appointed as Reader in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 vide order dated 10.04.1991. One MS Gill was also appointed as Reader on the same date and in the same pay scale. MS Gill was junior to the petitioner in the gradation list. The petitioner was at serial No.5, whereas MS Gill was at serial No.6 in the said order. The petitioner was later on promoted to the post of Court Secretary in the pay scale ofRs.10025-15100/- with effect from 22.09.2003 vide order dated 24.09.2003. MS Gill was also promoted to the post of Court Secretary in the same pay scale with effect from the same date as the petitioner. The petitioner was further promoted to the post of Special Secretary in the pay scale of Rs.12000-15500/- with effect from 28.03.2007. MS Gill was also CWP No.9566 of 2010 -2- promoted vide the same office order as Special Secretary. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though MS Gill was junior to the petitioner, but his pay was fixed at Rs.2775/- on 14.07.1991 whereas the pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.2200/- as Reader. Similarly, on promotional post of Court Secretary, pay of MS Gill was fixed at Rs.13500/- while that of the petitioner at Rs.10300/-. The same position continued on further promotion where the petitioner's pay was fixed at Rs.11660/- and of MS Gill at Rs.15100/-. The petitioner has made a representation dated 06.11.2006 (Annexure P-7) followed by reminder dated 17.03.2010 (Annexure P-9). Receiving no response, present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to fix salary of the petitioner at par with MS Gill who is stated to be junior to the petitioner. The petitioner has placed reliance upon some judgments of this Court referred to in the prayer part of the writ petition. During the pendency of this writ petition, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the issue involved in the writ petition is under consideration by a Committee of Hon'ble Judges on the Administrative Side. The said Committee has formulated its decision on 06.10.2010 and made various recommendations. The matter is still under active consideration. The Committee has also directed the office to process the representations of all the representationists in view of the directions issued by the Committee. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Registrar General of this Court or any other competent officer appointed for this purpose to decide the representation of the petitioner in the light of the recommendations of the Committee of CWP No.9566 of 2010 -3- Hon'ble Judges within a period of three months. 09.11.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE