- (1.) Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside the order dated 14.11.2008 (Annexure P-26) vide which the representations dated 7.11.2007 and 16.1.2008 (Annexures P-23 and P-24) respectively, stand rejected and his claim with regard to the release of leave salary and gratuity has been declined, apart from his claim for revised pay-scales as per the decision dated 17/18.11.1998 (Annexure P-6).
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner, after arguing the case for some time, does not press his claim with regard to the grant of leave encashment and gratuity but restricts his claim only to the grant of revision of his salary as per the decision of the respondents dated 17/18.11.1998.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation from Punjab Agro Industries as Manager (Accounts) on 30.11.1997. He was appointed as a Consultant in Punjab Energy Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as 'PEDA') on a consolidated salary of Rs. 4000/- per month vide appointment letter dated 26.03.1998. As per Clause 6 thereof, he was liable to be transferred by the Appointing Authority from one post to another, within the Agency or to any place within which it may consider necessary, in the interest of PEDA. He joined the said post as a Consultant but thereafter vide order dated 16/17.4.1998, he was transferred as Manager (Finance). He continued to work as such and thereafter was transferred to Punjab Renewal Energy Development and Power Generation Company Limited, a subsidiary company of PEDA and performed his duties there as well. His term of appointment came to an end on 7.11.2007. During the interregnum, the amount of consolidated salary of Rs. 4000/- was increased to Rs. 4500/- on 12.2.1999 and thereafter to Rs. 7000/- vide order dated 9.4.2001 (Annexure P-16). He submits that a Committee was constituted by the Punjab Energy Development Agency vide its decision dated 11.6.1998 (Annexure P-4) to consider the case for grant of pay scales to different categories of contractual employees. The Committee so constituted made its recommendations for revision of salaries of contractual employees which was accepted by PEDA and an office order dated 17/18.11.1998 (Annexure P-6) was passed. According to the said office order, a formula was specified with regard to fixing of the basic salary of the employee who was working on contractual basis on 22.5.1998 and was drawing consolidated salary. The petitioner although was also appointed on contractual basis and was drawing a consolidated salary but this benefit was not granted to him and instead certain jumps were provided to him which have already been pointed out earlier. He submits that since the petitioner possessed all the requirements which were to be fulfilled as per the decision dated 17/18.11.1998, the non-grant of the revision in the salary to the petitioner cannot be sustained and the claim as made by the petitioner in the present writ petition qua this deserves to be allowed.;