High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/984/2016disposed of

Udik Chand v. The Punjab State Cooperative Supply And Marketing Federation

2016-01-19Mr. Justice A.B. Chaudhari2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No. 984 of 2016 Date of decision: 19.01.2016 Udik Chand ....Petitioner(s)

Versus

The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. and another

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

Present:

Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks a direction for refixation of his basic pay, in consonance with the terms and conditions of the merger order dated 24.12.2008 (Annexure P1), passed by respondent No.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as a peon with the Jalalabad Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., District Ferozepur. which was merged with respondent No.1. In pursuance of the said merger, respondent No.1 passed the order dated 20.02.2009 (Annexure P2) whereby the petitioner's basic pay was fixed at Rs.5,640/-, on merger. Thereafter, his pay was wrongly fixed on 30.04.2009 (Annexure P3) at an amount lower than the one which had already been fixed. He had filed representation dated 28.06.2009 (Annexure P4) for correction of his pay fixation and for restoration of his basic pay from Rs.4,850/- to Rs.5,640/- and for releasing the arrears of pay.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar circumstances, this Court in CWP No. 14036-2010 titled Gurdial Singh Vs. Punjab State SHIVANI GUPTA 2016.01.20 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

-2Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. (Markfed), decided on 28.03.2012 (Annexure P6), has set aside the orders whereby the basic pay had been reduced. It is further pointed out that directions have also been issued to decide the representations, in various cases and necessary reliefs have been granted to other employees and reference is made to the case of Darshana Rani widow of Late Ram Chand (Annexures P7 & P8). He submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, at this stage, if a time-bound direction is given to the respondents to decide the representations dated 28.06.2009 (Annexure P4) and 28.10.2015 (Annexure P7). Keeping in view the limited controversy involved, this Court does not feel it necessary to call upon the respondents to file reply.

Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the representations dated 28.06.2009 (Annexure P4) and 28.10.2015 (Annexure P7), within a period of 3 months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case the petitioner is found entitled for the said relief, the financial benefits be disbursed to him, within a period of 1 month, thereafter. In case the benefit is to be denied, a reasoned order be passed and the same be conveyed to the petitioner. 19.01.2016 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) shivani JUDGE SHIVANI GUPTA 2016.01.