- (1.) Present writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.8.2011 (Annexure P-6) issued by respondent No.3, whereby anomaly in the revised pay scales of the petitioners was removed w.e.f. 1.1.2006 but financial benefits thereof were granted w.e.f. 18.9.2010.
(2.) Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement was filed on behalf of respondent No.3 only. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that vide communication dated 27.1.2009 ( Annexure P-2), respondent No.3 recommended revision of pay scale to respondent No.2 w.e.f 1.1.2006, including for the post of petitioners, i.e. Accountant. He further submits that in response to the abovesaid communication Annexure P-2, respondent No.2 wrote back to respondent No.3 vide communication dated 15.7.2009 (Annexure P-3) wherein post of Accountant held by the petitioners was inadvertently left. The matter was reconsidered by respondent No.3 and, vide its decision taken in the meeting held on 17.8.2010 (Annexure P-4), pay scales were revised with immediate effect. However, since post of Accountant held by the petitioners was not included in communication Annexure P-3, benefit was not granted to the petitioners. Faced with the above, respondent No.3 again reconsidered the matter and vide agenda item No.9 dated 2.12.2010 took the decision vide Annexure P-5. Proceedings of meeting of the board of directors held on 2.12.2010 were approved vide Annexure P-5. He also submits that in spite of the recommendations made by respondent No.3, respondents No. 1 and 2 failed to appreciate the true factual as well as legal position available on record, while not granting revision of pay scale to the petitioners w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Respondent No.3 also succumbed to the pressure of respondents No. 1 and 2, while passing impugned order dated 8.8.2011 (Annexure P-6), which was patently illegal. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment dated 16.8.2013 passed by this Court in CWP No. 448 of 1994 (Prem Raj Giri and others Vs. The Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd and another). He prays for setting aside the impugned order dated 8.8.2011 (Annexure P-6), by allowing this writ petition.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that although it was correct that respondent No.3 repeatedly recommended the case of the petitioners for revision of pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.2006, yet it were respondents No.2 and 1 who restricted the benefits of revision of pay scale only from 18.9.2010. He further submits that respondent No. 2 did not grant the financial benefits to the petitioners w.e.f. 1.1.2006, because of poor financial condition of respondent No.3-Federation. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition.;