- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioners were granted the pay-scale of Rs. 2000-3200 on revision of stales on the basis of pay com mission report and pay rationalisation committee. Subsequently it was found that the same was clone by inadvertence or mis take. Accordingly, the same was corrected by an order dated 30-1-94 being An-nexure-2 to the writ petition by which the petitioners were granted the scale of Rs. 1600-2660. It is this order that has been challenged by the petitioners in the present writ petition.
(2.) SHRI M. D. Misra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends relying on paragraph 10 of the Govern ment Order dated 3-6-89 being report of the pay rationalisation committee on the basis of the pay commission report that by reason of the provisions contained therein the petitioners should have been granted the pay-scale of Rs. 2000-3200. He also contends that the petitioners are entitled to the said scale by reason of their right for being considered to be promoted to the Deputy Librarian which bears the scale of Rs. 2000-3200. In the writ petition, the only prayer that has been made are as follows:- " (i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30-1 -94 which is Annexure-II. (ii) writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the scale of petitioner i. e. Rs. 2000-3200 and continue to pay the same. (iii) any writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem tit and | roper in the circumstances of the ease. (iv) to award the cost of the petition to the petitioners against the respondents. " Thus it appears that the question of promotion was not thought of at the time when the writ petition was moved. In the pleadings also no such case was made out. During the course of argument, Shri Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioners insisted that because of paragraph 10 of the Government Order dated 3-6-89, petitioners' scale should be fixed at the next higher promotional post being Rs. 2000-3200. He also contends that he filed an application for amendment which should be allowed. Mr. Anil Tiwari, learned Counsel for the respondent University, on the other hand, contends that fixation of the scale of Rs. 2000-3200 was done by mis take since paragraph 10 of the Govern ment Order dated 3-6-89 clearly indicates that in case there is no scope for promo tion in that event the scale is to be given at the next higher scale to revised scale to be fixed under the said Government Order. The next higher scale in the revised scale to be fixed for the petitioners is scale No. 16, in asmuch as the petitioners' revised scale was scale No. 14, instead his pay was fixed wrongly at pay scale No. 18.
(3.) I have heard Shri M. D. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioners at length and Shri Anil Tiwari, learned Counsel for respondent University. In the application for amendment, the following statements have been made:- "that the petitioner's real grievance is that his right to promotion to the post of Deputy Librarian in the Library of the respondent University and right to receive the salary and other allowance had been infringed and cur tailed by the University authorities in arbitrary manner and out of mala fides and the excesses committed against the petitioner No. 1 climbed to its climax when the impugned order dated 30-1-94 by virtue of which the pay scale of the petitioner No. 1 was reduced to 1600-2660 from 2000- 3200 and the petitioner No. 1 filed the abovenoted writ petition in a haphazardous manner seeking the relief of quashing of the order dated 30-1-94 and the specific prayer for promotion to the post of Librarian and the revised pay-scale and other allowance as such could not be made in the writ petition which is the backbone of the claim of the petitioner";