Mohan Singh v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. And ORS.

(208)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 15.05.2023 Mohan Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another ...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :

Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Puneet Bhandari, Advocate for the respondents. **** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) By way of this writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari directing the respondents to admit the claim of the petitioner for stepping up of his pay over his junior, namely, Nirmal Kaur, Senior Scale Stenographer.

(2) The reasoning afforded by the respondents in their written statement to deny the claim of the petitioner in para nos. 2 and 3, reads as under:- "2. That the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the Government of Punjab, Department of Finance has issued instructions dated 12.08.2010 with regard to removal of anomaly by stepping up of the pay of senior government employees drawing less pay than their juniors. A copy of the instructions dated 12.08.2010 is appended to the written statement as Annexure P-2 for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. A perusal of

-2para 2 (c) of the aforesaid instructions would reveal that no relief of stepping up of pay will be given under the aforesaid instructions if the senior employee exercises an option of revised pay scale from a date different than the date of option of the junior employee. In the present case, the petitioner has opted for revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006 however the said Smt. Nirmaljit Kaur had opted for revised pay scale w.e.f. 25.10.2006. Meaning thereby that there is different date of option between these two employees therefore petitioner cannot equate his case with that of Nirmaljit Kaur. 3.

     

     

     



 



 !"#  

 ##    

 $

 #  

 %  #        

 & $'

%  (%   % &#  "

)
 

 ##  #!    

   

 

 

)" 

    # $

   #     #          !

*   & $(+  #,  %  &# 

"

)

  

) 



     

& $'

% (%   % &#  "

)-

%

   "  

  (.

$ /   

 % #      

 & $(+  # ,  % &# 

"

)



) 

0 

)
    

 

 

 #

   

%



 1 %  



 

2 (3) Mr. Walia, learned counsel representing the petitioner does not dispute that as per the instructions relied upon by counsel for the respondents, the petitioner would not be entitled for stepping up of pay as claimed and there is no challenge raised to the instructions.

-34.

In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. May 15, 2023 (Pankaj Jain) Anjal Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No