CWP No.16623 of 2008.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.16623 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.01.2010 **** Rattan Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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. H.S. Minhas, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) The petitioner, who joined as a T-Mate (Helper) on 12.02.1964, has retired from the post of Foreman Gr-I on attaining the age of superannuation on 31st May, 2004. He seeks a direction to the respondents to implement the order dated 28.09.2001 (Annexure P2) and grant him one increment w.e.f. 01.08.2001 increasing his salary over and above his juniors mentioned in the order (Annexure P2) itself. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, the respondents have filed their counter-reply. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. CWP No.16623 of 2008.doc - 2 – Neither it is averred in the writ petition nor does the order dated 28.09.2001 (Annexure P2) suggest that there was any anomaly in the pay/pay-scale granted to the petitioner on his promotion as Foreman Gr-I. The aforesaid order has been passed on the premise that some of his juniors have also got the pay-scale of Rs.5480-8925 which the petitioner, admittedly, was already drawing w.e.f. 01.01.1996 on his promotion as a Foreman Gr-I. The placement of a junior person in the pay-scale, as is being drawn by his senior(s) while both of them are serving in the same cadre, does not constitute an ‘anomaly’. The very basis of the order (Annexure P2) being erroneous in law and facts both, it cannot be given effect and the respondents have rightly withdrawn the same. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the benefit of one increment was granted to his juniors in the same manner. The respondents in Para 7 of their counter-reply, however, have specifically averred that the promotional increment was granted to the juniors only when they were promoted from the pay-scale of 5000-8100 to the pay-scale of Rs.5480-8925 which the petitioner was already drawing. They have further averred that at the time of his pay fixation, the petitioner was also granted the benefit of such one increment on the same pattern as was later on granted to his juniors. CWP No.16623 of 2008.doc - 3 – For the reasons afore-stated, the desired relief cannot be granted to the petitioner. Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 28.01.2010 vishal shonkar