Civil Writ Petition No. 14276 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 14276 of 2000 Date of decision : 18.03.2010 Gian Singh ....Petitioner V/s Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab and another ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA 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. M.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No. 1. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) The petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order Annexure P-4 passed by respondent No. 1 whereby his claim for five annual increments was rejected on the ground that he did not represent in time to respondent No. 2-Federation for redressal of his grievance. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was employed as Educational Inspector with respondent No. 2-Federation and he retired on 31.08.1997. According to learned counsel, the petitioner was not paid his annual increments for the period 1981 to 1985. Due to this reason, Civil Writ Petition No. 14276 of 2000 2 he submitted representation dated 06.04.1998, Annexure P-2 about eight months after his retirement. According to learned counsel, in view of the fact that petitioner was exonerated in the inquiry held against him vide order dated 19.03.1986, Annexure P-1, the petitioner was legitimately entitled to the increments sought by him. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, however, submits that on 19.03.1986, the petitioner was exonerated on technical grounds but liberty was granted to the Board of Directors to take disciplinary action against the petitioner. According to learned counsel, due to this reason petitioner remained quite about his rights till he retired from the service. It is only, thereafter, he raised the grievance regarding the payment of increments for the period 1981 to 1985. According to learned counsel despite this, increments were sanctioned to the petitioner vide order dated 11.12.1997, Annexure P-5 and his pay was fixed in the revised pay- scale vide order Annexure P-6. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the court to the stand taken by respondent No. 2-Federation in para 6 of the reply in this regard. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. The petitioner was working as a Educational Inspector with respondent No. 2-Federation. He retired from service on 31.08.1997. It is not disputed that there was inquiry pending against the petitioner on the allegation that he had committed certain irregularities during his posting in the year 1980. The petitioner was, however, exonerated of the charges vide order dated 19.03.1986, Annexure P-1 on the ground that charge-sheet was served upon him without approval of the Board of Directors. Liberty was Civil Writ Petition No. 14276 of 2000 3 granted to the Board of Directors to take disciplinary action against the petitioner in accordance with rules. No action was, however, initiated against the petitioner thereafter. The petitioner retired from the post in normal course on 31.08.1997. On 06.04.1998, he addressed a letter to the Managing Director seeking five increments for the period 1980 to 1985. He also raised his grievance with the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab. The Registrar, however, rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that he had failed to seek his remedy within reasonable time. Before this court, respondent No. 2-Federation has taken a stand that the increments due to the petitioner were duly paid and pay of the petitioner was re-fixed vide order Annexure P-6. The stand of the respondent No. 2-Federation as contained in para 6 of its reply reads thus:- “6. Para 6 of the writ petition is admitted to the extent that the annual grade increment due to the petitioner as on 01.01.1980 was sanctioned vide letter dated 11.12.1979 (Annexure P-5). Thereafter, on the revision of pay-scales, the pay of the petitioner was fixed in the revised pay-scale and the annual increments were given to the petitioner from 1986, onward in the revised pay-scales. The averments made in rest of the paragraph are wrong, incorrect and hence denied. It is specifically wrong and denied that the petitioner has not been paid the annual increments relating to the years 1981 to 1985. The salary of the petitioner has been fixed in the revised pay- scale on the revision of pay-scales, with effect from 01.01.1986 and the petitioner had been paid the arrears on account of revision of pay-scales.” In view of fact that it is the clear stand of respondent No. 2- Federation before this court that all increments due to the petitioner were paid and his pay was fixed accordingly, there appears to be no ground to Civil Writ Petition No. 14276 of 2000 4 interfere in the writ jurisdiction of this court. The petitioner has not filed any re-joinder to rebut the stand taken by respondent No. 2-Society. It is not disputed that petitioner raised his claim for payment of increments after considerable delay. Despite this, it appears that increments relating to the years 1981 to 1985 were in fact granted to the petitioner and pay was re- fixed accordingly. In view of the above, there is not merit in the writ petition. The same is hereby dismissed. March 18, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE