-1- Civil Writ Petition No.12221 of 2003. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: April 22,2008. S.P.S. Yadav ... Petitioner VERSUS U.T. Administration through the Secretary, Education, Sector 9, Chandigarh, and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers 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 ? Present: Mr. A.S. Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sidharth Sanwaria, Advocate, for respondents Nos.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The petitioner is a Lecturer in Sri Guru Gobind Singh College, Sector 26, Chandigarh - respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent-College'). On July 19, 1975, he -2- Civil Writ Petition No.12221 of 2003. had joined the respondent-College on regular basis. Earlier to it, he had served the respondent-College for 11 months on temporary basis. In the year 1986, the petitioner's salary was fixed retrospectively with effect from August 01, 1975, after giving him the benefit of 11 months' temporary service. In the year 1991, when the petitioner had completed 16 years of service,, he was given selection grade by giving him the benefit of past service of 11 months, and he was given increment just after one month. The grievance of the petitioner is that grades of College and University Teachers were revised with effect from January 01, 1996 and selection grade of Rs.3700-5700 was revised to Rs.12000-18300. The Lecturers with five years' service in the grade of Rs.3700-5700 - with basic pay of Rs.4325/- were placed at Rs.14940/-, whereas he was getting basic pay of Rs.4325/- on January 01,1996 after earning five increments in the selection grade with the help of 11 months' of temporary service benefit already granted to the petitioner. At the time of re-fixation of pay, his pay was fixed at Rs.12420/- as on January 01, 1996 and Rs.14940/- with effect from July 19, 1996 when he completed five years' of service after placement in the selection grade and the next date of increment was fixed as July 01, 1997 i.e after completion of one year; thereby withdrawing the benefit of 11 months service. According to the petitioner, to continue this benefit of 11 months temporary service, the date of his next increment should have been August, 1996. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and -3- Civil Writ Petition No.12221 of 2003. perusing the impugned order dated July 04, 2003 (Annexure P- 11) passed by Mr. Dalip Kumar, I.A.S, Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Chandigarh Administration, we do not find any ground warranting interference therewith in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. The order passed by the Director Public Instructions (Colleges) is an elaborate and well-reasoned one. After discussing the relevant instructions and rules on the subject, it has rightly been observed by him that the old date of increment was required to be retained only in those cases where the fixation of pay at Rs.14940/- with service ranging from 5 to 12 years as on January 01, 1996 constituted an anomaly. The petitioner had completed 5 years service in the selection grade on July 19, 1996 and was, therefore, awarded stepping up in his pay at Rs.14940/- (benefit of six increments @ Rs.420/- in the scale of Rs.12000-18300) and had, thus, rightly been given next increment on July 01,1997 after the completion of 12 months. The petitioner, when he was initially allowed the placement in the selection grade on July 19,1991, he was allowed the retention of his old date of increment. The plea of the petitioner that he is being denied the benefit of 11 months of temporary service towards the pay fixation is, therefore, not tenable. It has rightly been observed by the Director of Public Instructions (Colleges) that since it is not a placement rather a stepping up of pay at the stage of Rs.14940/- on the completion of 5 years service, the benefit of retention of old date of increment is not admissible to the petitioner. In fact, benefit of 11 months -4- Civil Writ Petition No.12221 of 2003. temporary service had not been denied to the petitioner at any stage, rather his pay had been fixed by allowing him further increment on completion of 12 months service on July 01, 1997. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed being without any merit. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE JUDGE April 22, 2008. ak