Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashwani Kumar Mehta & Another vs The Punjab State Electricity Board And ... on 14 November, 2008
Author: Ajay Tewari
Bench: Ajay Tewari
C.W.P No. 16142 of 1999 ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P No. 16142 of 1999
Date of decision : November 14, 2008
Ashwani Kumar Mehta & another
...... Petitioners
through Mr.G.S.Bal, Advocate
v.
Punjab State Electricity Board & another
...... Respondents
through Mr.Saurabh Goel, Advocate
for Mr.Govind Goel, Advocate
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
*** AJAY TEWARI, J The petitioners were appointed as Telephonists in the respondent-Board in the years 1974 and 1972 respectively. In 1977, they were promoted as Sub Station Attendants. Subsequently, by order dated 13.7.1978, one Karnail Singh was appointed by way of direct recruitment as Sub Station Attendant in the same pay scale of Rs.450-800/- in which the petitioners had already been working since their promotion. The said Karnail Singh continued to be shown as junior to the petitioners. Thereafter, by Finance Circular No.17 of 1990, dated 23.4.1990, in continuation, consolidation and suppression of earlier instructions, the respondent-Board introduced a scheme to allow "time bound benefit of promotional scales"
C.W.P No. 16142 of 1999 ::2::
after completion of 9/16 years of regular service in the Punjab State Electricity Board.
Subsequently, on the basis of the above instructions, the pay of Karnail Singh was fixed at Rs.1640/- in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925/- w.e.f 13.7.1987, whereas the basic pay of the petitioners was fixed at Rs.1410/- and 1470/- respectively w.e.f 13.7.1987. The petitioners represented several times against the above anomaly but ultimately their claim was rejected vide the impugned order dated 24.12.1998 on the ground that they had been promoted.
It is not disputed by both the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy herein is identical to CWP No.13466 of 1999, Jit Singh and another vs The Punjab State Electricity Board and another, and CWP No. 1925 of 2004, Didar Singh vs The Punjab State Electricity Board & another, which have been allowed by me vide a common order dated 24.10.2008.
This writ petition is consequently allowed in the same terms as in the aforesaid writ petitions.
( AJAY TEWARI ) November 14, 2008. JUDGE `kk'