← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/21353/2023dismissed

Mamta v. State Of Punjab And Others

2023-09-252 pages

  30

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH  

     Date of Decision: 25.09.2023 Mamta

...Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Present

Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner. *** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1.

The petitioner by way of this writ petition challenges the order passed by the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Mohali, in pursuance of the directions passed by this Court in the previous writ petition filed by the petitioner decided on 06.09.2022. 2.

The petitioner has again come to this Court after the decision of the District Education Officer (EE), Mohali. However, this Court finds that the order passed by the District Education Officer (EE), Mohali, rejecting the representation and legal notice of the petitioner is based on fact that similar writ petition bearing CWP-22069-2014, titled 'Om Parkash and others vs. State of Punjab and others', was preferred wherein the department by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hukam Chand Gupta vs. Director General, ICAR and others decided on 25.09.2012 and the Government of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. P. Hari Hara Prasad and others (2002) 7 SCC 707, had contended that the ground of revision of pay is in the exclusive domain of the employer. RAJESH KUMAR 2023.09.28 13:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

     

  3.

In the opinion of this Court, no right exists with any employee to claim a particular pay scale. It is also noticed that the pay scale of Rs.1030034800, of the petitioner has been recommended by the 5th Pay Commission, which was granted to the ETT Teachers w.e.f. 01.10.2011. Pay scales of certain other categories of posts were re-revised in December, 2011. The petitioner demands that his pay should also be re-revised. 4.

Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra) and that the similar writ petition filed by one Om Parkash, has already been dismissed, there was no occasion for the petitioner to again challenge the order passed by the District Education Officer (EE), Mohali, which is based on the aforesaid judgments as noticed above. Moreover, the petitioner has not even bother to mention about the said fact of similar writ petition already having been dismissed by this Court on 11.09.2017. 5.

The writ petition is totally frivolous and is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited in the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund.

6.

All pending misc. application(s) also stand disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE 25.09.2023.

rajesh

1. Whether speaking/reasoned?

:

Yes/No

2. Whether reportable?

:

Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2023.09.28 13:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.