cr no.4071 of 2007.doc - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.4071 of 2007 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 09.12.2009 **** Harjinder 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. Amardeep Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). This revision petition is directed by the decree-holder against the order dated 29.01.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, whereby, his execution application has been filed having been fully satisfied. (2). The petitioner was working as a S.S. Master in the Education Department, Punjab. Vide an order dated 03.10.1989, his two increments were stopped with cumulative effect. He challenged that order by way of a Civil Suit which was decreed in his favour on 05.10.1979 by the First Appellate Court and the said decree has attained finality. The petitioner applied for execution, wherein a statement was made on behalf of the respondent- State that the two increments w.e.f. 01.01.1989 and 01.01.1990 have since been granted to the petitioner and consequential arrears have also been paid and as such the subject decree has been fully satisfied. cr no.4071 of 2007.doc - 2 - (3). The petitioner, however, urged before the Executing Court that meanwhile, higher revised pay scales had become admissible retrospectively and, accordingly, he is entitled to the two increments at the rate given in the revised pay scale. The petitioner’s claim has been turned down by the Executing Court being not a ‘part of the decree’. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I do not find any error of jurisdiction committed by the Executing Court, Jalandhar, in declining the prayer for grant of two increments at or higher rate as per the revised pay scales, even when the revised pay scale is granted to the petitioner. (5). Faced with this situation, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled to be granted revised pay scale but his claim has not been considered by the authority in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. Though it is beyond the scope of these proceedings, however, with a view to obviate the hardship which the petitioner might face if forced to another round of litigation, this revision petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to represent to the competent authority for the grant of revised pay scales and if such a representation is made by him within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the respondent-authorities shall be obligated to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with the Government policies/rules within a period of four months from the date of its receipt. It requires hardly any mention that if the petitioner’s claim for grant of revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1986 is accepted, in that event, the benefit of two increments have to be granted to the petitioner at the rate prescribed in the revised pay scales. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondent/authorities of the cr no.4071 of 2007.doc - 3 - Department concerned within a period of two months after deciding the petitioner’s claim for the revised pay scales. (6). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 09.12.2009 vishal shonkar