IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4764 of 1989 Date of decision: 5th July, 2010 Smt. Shashi Bala … Petitioner Versus Haryana State Electricity Board … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner was employed as a Lower Division Clerk in the establishment of the respondent-Board. She has prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued and the respondent-Board be directed to remove the anomaly in fixing the pay of the petitioner in the revised scale of pay, adopting the same formula as was done in the case of Nirmal Singh and Parveen Kumar, who were juniors to her and that they could not be allowed to draw the salary in excess of what the petitioner was drawing, especially when the petitioner was senior to them. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the pay-scale of Rs.100-250 on 31st December, 1976. Nirmal Singh was also appointed as a Lower Division Clerk against a regular vacancy on the same day. The respondent-Board on 28th Civil Writ Petition No.4764 of 1989 February, 1981 revised the pay-scales of various categories of posts with effect from 1st April, 1979, in pursuance of which petitioner was placed in the pay-scale of Rs.400-700. It is not denied by Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate appearing for the respondent-Board, that the petitioner was shown at Serial No.451 in the seniority list, whereas Nirmal Singh and Parveen Kumar were placed at Serial No.458 and 522 respectively. Mr.Hooda has stated that the petitioner and her juniors, viz. Nirmal Singh and Parveen Kumar, opted for formula ‘A’ and exercised their options vide form ‘A’, and as a result of deemed fixation, the date of increment of the petitioner was fixed as 1st April, 1980. This was also done in the case of Nirmal Singh. However, in case of Parveen Kumar, the same was fixed as 1st November, 1979. It is also agreed that vide Annexure P-10, the petitioner had exercised her option and opted for formula ‘A’. It is also not disputed by Mr.Hooda that the juniors of the petitioner also opted for formula ‘A’. Mr.Hooda has submitted that had the petitioner opted for formula ‘B’, her pay would have automatically been protected and she would have been brought at par with her juniors. It is stated that it is so specified in part (d) of formula ‘B’. However, Mr.Hooda has stated that no such provision existed in formula ‘A’, thus, it was for the petitioner to consider all consequences when she opted for formula ‘A’. There is no denial by Mr.Hooda that in formula ‘A’ indeed an anomaly had occurred and Parveen Kumar, a junior was drawing more salary than the petitioner. If the department had failed to make the same provision in formula ‘A’ as was done in formula ‘B’ then an employee cannot be made to suffer. The petitioner, being senior, was entitled to the salary as was drawn by her junior(s). Therefore, the present writ petition is hereby accepted and the respondent-Board is directed to re-fix the salary of the petitioner at par 2 Civil Writ Petition No.4764 of 1989 with that of Parveen Kumar, her junior. The arrears, if any, shall be restricted to 38 months before filing of the present writ petition. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 5, 2010 rps 3