1 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 911 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 911 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 911 OF 2008 B.C. Panicker ... Petitioner Versus Union of India and ors. ... Respondents Ms.Suchitra Kambli i/by Sonali Humane for the Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATED: OCTOBER 01, 2008 DATED: OCTOBER 01, 2008 DATED: OCTOBER 01, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Rule. Heard forthwith. . The Petitioner was earlier employed as a constable in the Railway Protection Force. On account of medical unsuitability, the Screening Committee found the petitioner fit to be absorbed in Grade D under scale 2550-3200. The Petitioner, in so far as post in which the Petitioner was absorbed, in the lower time scale, was entitled to pay protection. . The another grievance of the Petitioner is that by communication of 25.5.2006, the counsel for the Petitioner was informed that the case of the Petitioner for alternative employment in the lower 2 grade than the grade held on regular basis at the time of medical decategorization is to be reviewed but the same could not be finalized for want of service records of the Petitioner herein. . From the records we find that the Petitioner was medically decategorised on 27.12.1999 and was absorbed in the post of peon in the Pay Scale of Rs.2550-3200. The Petitioner presently is working in the post of Daftary. The grievance of the Petitioner is that while absorbing the Petitioner at the time of medical decategorization, Petitioner’s last pay drawn in the post of constable has not been protected and consequently the Petitioner has suffered financial loss. The second contention of the petitioner is that the Petitioner who was holding Class III post ought not to have been recruited to Class IV post as the other constables have been absorbed in the Class III post. . We have heard the counsel for the respondents. Having considered the case, in our opinion, this petition can be disposed of by issuing the following directions : (1) Considering the communication of 30.11.2007, if the Petitioner’s last drawn pay in the post of constable was not protected at the time the 3 Petitioner was absorbed in the post of Peon, the respondents are directed within eight weeks from today to protect the basic pay drawn by the Petitioner in the lower time scale and pay him the difference. The Petitioner’s last pay drawn in the post of constable be protected in the time scale of peon. If the same could not protected on account of difference to be paid as personal pay, till such time the Petitioner can be fitted at the appropriate stage in the time scale. The entire exercise to be completed within eight weeks from today and the Petitioner be paid difference, if any. (2) Considering the communication of 25.5.2006, the Petitioner’s case be reviewed at any rate not later than one week from today. . Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)