Devendra Kumar Arora, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
(2.) BY means of present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned order dated 12.6.2009, passed by the Executive Engineer, Nalkoop Khand -I, Lakhimpur Kheri whereby their claim was rejected on the ground that during 5th Pay Commission he had filled up the optional form w.e.f. February, 1996 whereas Vth Pay Commission came into force w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Petitioners have further prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider and pay all the difference of salary (Rs. 140/ -) to them as has been given to the similarly situated persons working in the same capacity and also pay arrears of salary. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were initially appointed in the year 1994 except petitioner no. 17 who was appointed in the year 1991 as Part -time Tubewell Operators, after following due procedure and they are continuing till date from the date of their initial appointments. Further submission is that in pursuance to the recommendations of 5th Pay Commission which were implemented w.e.f. 1.1.1996, an option was sought from the employees on the prescribed proforma and the petitioners inadvertently mentioned 1.2.1996 in the option form in place of 1.1.1996 and as a result of the same opposite parties fixed their salary wrongly as Rs. 3725/ - in place of Rs. 3800/ -, as provided to similarly situated persons and as a consequence of 6th Pay Commission, they are getting total salary Rs. 9810/ - whereas petitioners are getting less salary of Rs. 140/ - per month from other similarly situated persons.
(3.) THE petitioners feeling aggrieved approached the opposite party no. 3 i.e. the Executive Engineer, Nalkoop Khand -I, Lakhimpur Kheri for correction of the anomalies and with a prayer to grant them salary which is being paid to their other counter parts. The opposite party no. 3 by means of order dated 12.6.2009 rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners themselves had filled up the optional forms and accordingly their salaries have been fixed and there is no anomaly in the same. Being aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court.;