IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 243 of 2011 Date of Decision : March 29, 2011 Navdeep Kumar ….Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others …. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Vivek Rattan, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 21.5.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the writ petition filed by the appellant suffered from unexplained delay and laches. 2. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner case that in response to an advertisement, the appellant applied and appointed on the post of Sanitary Supervisor. The advertisement clearly stated that the pay scale of Sanitary Supervisor would be Rs.3120-5160. The claim of the appellant is that he is entitled to scale of Rs.5000-8100. The matter was brought before this Court when the petitioner filed C.W.P. No.12804 of 2005 which was disposed of on 18.8.2005 L.P.A. No. 243 of 2011 -2- directing the respondent to decide his representation. Municipal Council-respondent No.3 passed a resolution dated 28.9.2005 granting the appellant the higher pay scale of Rs.5000-8100 from the date of his joining. However, the aforesaid resolution was annulled by the Director, Local Self Government, Chandigarh vide order dated 3.3.2006. 3. Against the aforesaid order of the Director, the appellant still filed an appeal before the Secretary, Local Self Government, Chandigarh, who partially accepted the claim made by the appellant vide order dated 15.11.2006, a photocopy of said order is taken on the record as Mark 'A'. A perusal of the order passed by the State Government would show that the cadre of Sanitary Supervisor has not been constituted by the Government as per the provisions of Section 38 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and the appointing authority is Municipal Council. In the advertisement seeking applications for the post of Sanitary Supervisor, the pay scale of the post was stated to be Rs.3120-5160. The appellant participated in the selection process and was selected. In the appointment letter, the pay scale, as per the advertisement, was stipulated and the offer was accepted voluntarily by the appellant. The government has, however, taken the view that there was no justification in rejecting the resolution dated 28.9.2005 in its entirety, which was passed in pursuance of directions issued by this High Court in the earlier mentioned writ petition. Accordingly, the claim of the appellant for grant of the higher pay scale of Rs.5000-8100 from the date of appointment was rejected but it was upheld from the date of passing of resolution by the Municipal Council i.e. dated 28.9.2005. L.P.A. No. 243 of 2011 -3- 4. The order dated 15.11.2006 has been challenged before this Court in the year 2010. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition by taking the view that there was no explanation for delay and laches. An order passed on 15.11.2006 has been challenged in the year 2010 and even a civil suit would not be competent in this regard. 5. Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the considered view that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. Once an order has been passed by the Government on 15.11.2006 granting the benefit of the resolution dated 28.9.2005 from a prospective date, then the aforesaid order can be deemed to have been accepted by the appellant and the benefit of higher pay scale would be deemed to have been granted prospectively, i.e. from the date of passing of the resolution by the Municipal Council. The aforesaid relief proceeded on the basis that the cadre of Sanitary Supervisor is a non-provincial and the Municipal Council is the appointing authority. Therefore, we do not find any ground to grant higher pay scale to the appellant from the date of his joining because he approached this Court belatedly and there is no explanation for laches. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 29, 2011 JUDGE satish