IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No.1695 of 2010 Date of Decision : January 20, 2011 Shiv Charan ….Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others …. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Ms. Renu, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 9.9.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge holding that 'the representation has already been accepted. The petitioner may have his alternative remedy for implementation of the order'. Mr. R.K. Malik, learned Senior counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant is 100% blind and is a Lecturer in History. Once the order of refixation of his pay has been passed in his favour on 25.5.2009, then there is no scope for the respondent to refuse implementation of the aforesaid order. Notice of motion. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in the Court, accepts notice. Two copies of the paper-book has been handed over to him. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken on board and looking at the nature of the L.P.A. No.1695 of 2010 -2- controversy, we are inclined to decide the same. It has come on record that decision dated 25.5.2009 has been taken by the respondent and the pay of the appellant has been refixed in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10550/- and the total pay, which has been worked out, is Rs.9100/-. The aforesaid refixation is explained by the favourable order with the help of a table, which is as under:- Date Scale of pay & Basic Pay Remarks 30.10.2003 Rs.6500/--10500 Rs. 8700/- 1.4.2004 Rs. 6500 – 10500 Rs. 8700/- 1.4.2005 Rs. 6500 – 10550 Rs.9100/- Equal to his junior Sh. Narender Singh, Lecturer in History, GSSS, Krishan Nagar vide note 6 to Rule 7D (1) of revised pay Rules, 1998. The aforesaid order of refixation is not being implemented and a limited prayer made by the appellant is that he should be given the benefit of refixation by paying him the pay with arrears as refixed. We do not see any difficulty on the part of the respondent to implement its own order. Accordingly, we direct the respondent to implement the aforesaid order expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from today. A copy of the order be handed over to Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for its onward transmission and compliance. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE ( T.P.S. MANN ) January 20, 2011 JUDGE satish