Ghanshyam Dass v. State Of Hry. & ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.470 CWP-15115-1998 (O&M) Date of decision: May 30, 2022 Ghanshyam Dass

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and Others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present:

Mr. Anand Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. R.D. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. None for respondent No.3.

***** ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner, inter alia, seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash an office order dated 26.02.1998 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No.2 whereby the representations of the petitioner for granting higher pay scale of Rs 1400-2600 has been denied. He further seeks a direction commanding the respondents to grant him pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 w.e.f. 27.09.1995 on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

2.

Petition was admitted for hearing on 27.11.2006. 3.

It transpires that entire claim of the petitioner is premised on the recommendations made by the Board of Governors of the Food Craft Institute, Faridabad vide a resolution dated 02.06.1992 (Annexure A-3), wherein it was recommended that the pay scale for the post of store-keeper be revised w.e.f. 01.06.1992 to 1400-2600.

4.

As it turned out later, the said resolution was neither accepted nor even implemented. No doubt, had the resolution been accepted by the superiors, petitioner's claim on the higher pay scale would have had merit. And if denied, then his grievance could have been mitigated under the power of judicial review which has been invoked by him. Being not so, no grounds are made out to interfere.

ASHISH 2022.07.20 12:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-15115-1998 (O&M) -25.

Even otherwise, perusal of the return, particularly para No.6(i) reflects to the contrary, inasmuch as, the said resolution was later on superseded by the subsequent meeting of the Board of Governors held on 21.12.1994. To be noted, neither the said subsequent decision was challenged before this Court or otherwise, nor any replication has been filed to controvert the same. 6.

In view of the aforesaid, no grounds are made out to interfere. 7.

Dismissed.

(ARUN MONGA) JUDGE May 30, 2022 ashish Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No ASHISH 2022.07.20 12:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document