IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6308 of 2009 Date of Decision : September 22, 2010. Kuldip Singh .....Petitioner versus Punjab State Electricity Board and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.R.S.Khural, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Mattewal, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order/communication dated 1.9.2008 (Annexure P-11) whereby his application dated 1.2.2001 (Annexure P-6) seeking exercise of afresh option in the master scale has been declined. The petitioner accordingly seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to allow him to exercise the new option. Briefly stated, the petitioner, who had joined the respondents as a Lab Assistant and was one of the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No.387 of 1987 in which the writ petitioners had sought the pay scale of Rs.700-1200. Though the said writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge but the writ petitioner's L.P.A. No.488 of 1989 was allowed C.W.P.No .6308 of 2009 2 by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 7.11.1998 holding them entitled to the pay scale of Rs.700-1200 w.e.f. 1.1.1978. The respondent- Board filed a Review Petition which was dismissed followed by rejection of their SLP vide order dated 23.3.1999 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was thereafter only that the petitioner alongwith his co-petitioners were placed in the revised pay scale of Rs.1800-3200 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and Rs.6300-10700 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 respectively vide the order dated 27.12.2000. Since the petitioner was placed in the revised pay scale under the orders of this Court, he applied on 1.2.2001 for permitting him to exercise a fresh option for his placement in the master scale w.e.f. 1.11.1993. The above stated application of the petitioner has been turned down after a period of more than 7 years vide the impugned order dated 1.9.2008 (Annexure P-11), giving rise to this writ petition. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I am of the considered view that this petition deserves to succeed for the obvious reason that during the pendency of the earlier inter-se litigation, the petitioner was placed in a lower pay scale and once his pay stood revised under the directions of this Court, the earlier option given by him would lose its significance and the petitioner would be entitled to seek a fresh option for re-fixation of his pay in the revised pay scale. Somewhat similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Randhir Kaur and others versus State of Haryana and others (2003) (1) RSJ 178, after following the earlier decisions of this Court. C.W.P.No .6308 of 2009 3 For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order/communication dated 1.9.2008 (Annexure P-11) is quashed and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to exercise a fresh option in terms of his application dated 1.2.2001 (Annexure P-6). The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. September 22, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE