(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against inaction of the respondent/s in not extending the benefit of second time pay scale to the petitioner as well as the order dated 19/02/2018 and 20/02/2018 Annexures Ex.-P/7 and P/8, thereby recovering the amount from the petitioner's retiral dues.
(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed in the respondent / institute as LDC on daily wages basis on 12/04/1979, however, subsequently, in pursuance to the open competition / advertisement, the petitioner was selected and appointed w.e.f. 01/04/1986. Before appointment on the post of UDC, the petitioner was dully regularized as LDC w.e.f 26/05/2081 and thereafter, on 28/07/1993, the petitioner was selected and appointed as Office Assistance (PG), thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Registrar in the respondent / institution on 15/12/1997 by direct recruitment . The petitioner had become entitled for first time pay scale in the year 2006 and he was granted the same vide order dated 06/05/2010 w.e.f. 01/04/2006. As per the applicable rules, the petitioner and other Class A and B non-teaching staff, who are appointed by open selection procedure became entitled to grant of second time pay scale revision after 16 years of services. In the petitioner's case, he became eligible for the same on 15/10/2013. The case of the petitioner and other 79 employees , their names could be considered for the grant of above benefit in 2016 only, when five Members Committee was constituted for consideration of the case of the non-teaching staff for grant of the aforesaid benefit. Accordingly, the Committee, in its meeting, held on 07/04/2016, had considered the name of the petitioner and others 79 members of the non-teaching staff for grant of the above benefit of time pay scale revision pay.
(3.) Inspite of aforesaid recommendations, and on due approval of the then Director, the petitioner was discriminated again and subjected to hostile discrimination, as evident from the fact that while 79 employees had been granted benefit of second time pay-scale revision of pay and the same was denied to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore, submitted a representation to the respondent to extend him the said benefit, however, nothing was done in the matter. The petitioner, thereafter, sent a legal notice demanding second revision of salary immediately, so that when he retires a month later on 28/02/2018, his retiral dues be properly calculated, however, no action has been taken in the matter, therefore, the petitioner has to approach this Court.