IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 14958 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 14.10.2009 Balwinder Singh .... PETITIONER Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. This is second writ petition filed by the petitioner, who is working as Junior Engineer in the office of City Division, Punjab State Electricity Board, Barnala. Earlier, in the year 2005, he filed CWP No. 2402 of 2005, for issuing direction to the respondents to include his name in the seniority list and direct respondent No.2 to give deemed date promotion to the petitioner as Assistant Executive Engineer from the date his junior Manjit Singh was promoted. The said writ petition was disposed of by this court on 21.2.2005 with a direction to respondent No.2 to treat the legal notice as representation and decide the same as per law by passing a speaking order, within a period of two months. It is conceded position that in view of the said directions, the CWP No. 14958 of 2009 -2- representation filed by the petitioner was decided vide order dated 19.5.2005 (Annexure P-3) and it was held that the petitioner could not be given deemed date of promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer from the date Shri Manjit Singh was promoted, because his claim of promotion could not be considered due to the pendency of the departmental enquiry against him. After expiry of more than 4 years, the petitioner has filed the instant petition by making two fold prayer. Firstly, that the respondents be directed to fix the pay scale of the petitioner properly with effect from 25.2.1981, as he has not been granted any increment since 1981 and has been kept at the initial basic pay without any reason and justification. Secondly, the order dated 19.5.2005 (Annexure P-3), vide which the representation of the petitioner was rejected, be quashed and the petitioner be promoted, as no departmental proceeding is pending against him. When the earlier writ petition was filed, the petitioner did not utter even a word about the non-grant of increment to him since the year 1981 and the fact that he has been kept at the initial basic pay, without any justification and reason. If he was having any grouse to this effect, he should have claimed the said relief in the earlier petition. Now at the belated stage, he cannot be permitted to raise those grounds, particularly keeping in view the provision of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. Further, from the perusal of Award dated 31.1.1997 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Labour Court, Patiala, it appears that on an application filed by the petitioner under CWP No. 14958 of 2009 -3- Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the petitioner has already been granted the benefit of annual increment with effect from 1.1.1981 till the filing of the said application. The arrears of increments was ordered to be paid to the petitioner. The fixation of pay in the revised pay scale was ordered with payment of arrears. Therefore, no further direction to the respondents to fix the pay scale of the petitioner by granting him increments since 1981 is required. After expiry of four years, the petitioner is raising the plea that when his claim regarding deemed date of promotion was considered, no enquiry was pending against him. Except the oral averment in this regard, he has not placed on record any material. At this belated stage, such kind of contention cannot be accepted, particularly when the petitioner is making wrong averment with regard to the increments in the instant petition. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. Dismissed. October 14, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE