IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.W.P. No.21543 of 2008 Date of Decision:12.10.2011 A.K. Jain .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Kavita Arora, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Amit Sethi, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.(Oral) The claim of the petitioner in the present petition is for grant of pay scale at par with Sh. D.P. Soni, who was promoted as Divisional Engineer along with the petitioner on the same date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that salary of the petitioner is lesser to the salary being given to said D.P. Soni whereas salary of similarly situated officer cannot be more than the salary of the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled for the salary which is being given to said D.P. Soni. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the basis of reply, submits that the petitioner was granted pay-scale for which he was entitled and the pay-scale given to the petitioner was also increased from time to time as per entitlement and similarly D.P. Soni was also given pay-scale as per his entitlement. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submits that the petitioner was much junior to Shri D.P. Soni as Junior Engineer as C.W.P. No.21543 of 2008 -2- well as Sub Divisional Engineer which is the feeder cadre for the post of Divisional Engineer. Sh. D.P. Soni completed 14 years of service in November, 1996 and he became entitled for higher pay-scale of Rs.14,300- 18,150/- at that time and was getting more pay than the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer on 16.5.1984 and he was placed in higher pay scale of Rs.12,000-15,500/- with effect from 1.1.1996 on completion of 9 years of service as Sub Divisional Engineer and on completion of 14 years of service as SDE/DE, he was given higher pay scale and his basic pay was Rs.14,300/- per month as on 1.1.1999. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not granted benefit of 14 years of service on 15.5.1998 whereas he has been granted that benefit on 1.1.1999 and the petitioner would be satisfied in case he is also granted benefit of 14 years of service as per his entitlement. Since prayer of the petitioner is only for fixation of the salary at par with Sh. D.P. Soni but the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is getting less salary than D.P. Soni and the justification of the respondents has been shown that the benefit of 14 years of service was granted to the petitioner later on whereas D.P. Soni was given this benefit earlier. However, a representation was submitted by the petitioner but the same was not decided by the respondents and moreover, in the representation as well as in the legal notice, no specific ground has been mentioned with regard to grant of benefit on completion of 14 years of service. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as stand taken by the counsel for the respondents, no C.W.P. No.21543 of 2008 -3- direction can be issued at this stage. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation on the basis of stand taken by the respondents in the reply and in case such representation is moved by the petitioner to the respondents within a period of two weeks, the respondents are directed to consider & decide the case of the petitioner and if the petitioner is found entitled for the said claim, the necessary relief be granted to him within a period of one month thereafter. Disposed of accordingly. October 12, 2011 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) renu JUDGE