M.R. Agnihotri, J. - (1.) IN this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the grievance of the Petitioner, who is a Reader on the establishment of this Court, is domestic in nature. Foregoing his claim regarding seniority over his colleagues, he has confined his prayer in the petition only to the extent of re -fixation of his pay by adding the benefit of increments of his salary as a Reader in this Court, during the period he was working as Assistant Registrar -cum -Reader on deputation with Sikkim High Court from 28th October, 1978, to 13th May, 1988.
(2.) THE Petitioner joined service as a Clerk on 30th November, 1566, and was promoted as Assistant on 14th May, 1974, on the establishment of this Court. In 1977, he qualified in the competitive examination held for appointment as Reader. In 1978, on a requisition received from the High Court of Sikkim, options from the eligible employees were invited for appointment as Assistant Registrar -cum -Reader, on deputation in the Sikkim High Court. The Petitioner applied for the same and was selected. However, before he was actually deputed a temporary post of Reader was created by the Chief Justice of this Court with effect from 28th October, 1978, with the condition that the same be kept in abeyance and shall stand abolished on the reversion of the incumbent of the post from deputation. On that very day, by a separate order, the Chief Justice promoted the Petitioner as Officiating Reader and appointed him against the newly created post with the following condition: His promotion is subject to the specific condition that he will not claim seniority over his senior on his reversion to this Court and will be reverted to the post of officiating Assistant which he is holding at present. Thereafter, he proceeded on deputation and remained there as such till 13th May, 1983. While the Petitioner was still on deputation with the Sikkim High Court, the Chief Justice of this Court, on 23rd February, 1982, passed the following order fixing the pay of the Petitioner as Reader at Rs. 1,000 plus Rs. 100 as special pay per month in the revised pay scale of Rs. 825 - -1,580 with effect from 29th October, 1978: In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 34(1) of the High Court, Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973, as amended, read with the Rule 6(1) of the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Scales of Pay) Rules, 1979, and Rule 5(1) of the ibid rules, as amended by -Punjab Civil Services (Revised Scales of Pay) (First Amendment) Rules, 1981, Hon'ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to fix the pay of Sh. G.K. Khanna, Officiating Reader, on deputation to the High Court of Sikkim, at Rs. 1,000 plus Rs. 100 as special pay per month in the revised time scale of Rs. 825 -25 -850 301,000/40 -1,200/50 -1,400 -60 1,580 plus Rs. 100 P.M. as special pay with effect from 29th October, 1978 (FN) with next date of increment after completion of requisite period of one year i.e. with effect from 1st October, 1979. By Order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. (Sd.)...Assistant Registrar (Estt.)for Registrar. This order is still in force till today and has not been withdrawn so far. Despite this, on 20th September, 1983, pay of the Petitioner was reduced and re -fixed at Rs. 825 P.M., that is, the initial pay of the Reader with effect from July, 1982. Against this re -fixation of pay, the Petitioner made a representation on 12th January, 1984. This representation was rejected on 25th April, 1984, which gave rise to the present writ petition.
(3.) IN the written statement, it has been "admitted that the Petitioner had joined as Reader on 13th May, 1983, on reversion from deputation and he had already been given pro forma promotion as Reader with effect from 10th August, 1982, the date when his junior was promoted and he started to officiate continuously as Reader on the establishment of this Court from that date. He cannot derive any benefit of the period of deputation from 28th October, 1978 to 9th August, 1982 for his fixation of pay as Reader in this Court". But the impugned action is sought to be justified on the ground that the appointment order dated 28th October/1st November, (sic), clearly stipulated that the Petitioner would not claim seniority over his seniors on his reversion (meaning thereby on return from deputation to this Court). It has further been stated that the Petitioner has duly taken the benefit of annual increments while he remained on deputation. But so far as the High Court (Punjab and Haryana) is concerned, he was given the benefit of increments only in the cadre of Assistant the post against which his lien was retained in the High Court.;