CWP No. 3518 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 3518 of 2008
Date of decision: November 12, 2008
Rajinder Pal --- Petitioner
Versus
Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation & another
---- Respondents
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta
Present: Mr. RS Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ashutosh Mohunta, J (Oral).
By this order, we intend to dispose of 8 cases i.e. CWP
Nos. 14967 of 2007, 3518 of 2008, 5958 of 2008, 7153 of 2008,
9093 of 2008, 12674 of 2008, 16262 of 2008 and 16524 of 2008 as
common questions of law and facts are involved. For brevity the
facts are derived from CWP No.3518 of 2008.
The petitioner, who was working as an Inspector in the
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation ( hereinafter to be called ‘PRTC’)
made a request to his Department that he may be granted the same
pay as one Surjit Singh junior to him was drawing. Accordingly he
was equated with said Surjit Singh w.e.f. the year 1990.
Subsequently, it was found that the pay of Surjit Singh
was wrongly fixed. The same was re-fixed and was reduced.
Consequently, pay of the petitioner was also re-fixed and
was reduced from Rs. 6600/- to Rs.6400/- to bring him at par with
Surjit Singh, vide order dated 19-9-2000 vide order Annexure P2.
Since then, the petitioner has never challenged the order
of re-fixation of his pay. The same has now been challenged
CWP No. 3518 of 2008 2
through the present writ petition.
The petitioner had himself made a request that his pay be
brought at par with Surjit Singh Inspector. Acceding to his request,
he was brought at par with the latter. Since it was found
subsequently that the pay of Surjit Singh had been wrongly fixed, the
same was re-fixed and reduced. Now the petitioner cannot get
higher pay than Surjit Singh.
The petitioner had earlier filed a Civil Writ Petition No.
6165 of 2004, which was disposed of vide order dated 3-5-2004
( Annexure P4) and recovery sought to be effected from the
petitioner was quashed. However, no orders were passed with
regard to the reduction in pay.
In view of the above, since the pay of the petitioner had
been re-fixed to bring him at par with Surjit Singh Inspector and the
pay of Surjit Singh has been subsequently reduced on re-fixation,
the pay of the petitioner has been rightly re-fixed and reduced vide
order Annexure P2.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in
these writ petitions. The same are hereby dismissed.
[Ashutosh Mohunta]
Judge
[Rajan Gupta]
Judge
November 12, 2008
`ask’