- (1.) Feeling aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, petitioner has approached this court by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent authorities to grant the pay scales to the petitioner, prescribed for the post of Librarian. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. A separate reply was also filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4-University whereas nobody has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 3-college.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide communication dated 5.5.1986 (Annexure P-3), respondent-University had granted full fledged approval to the appointment of the petitioner. So far as respondent-college was concerned, vide communication dated 19.7.1985 (Annexure P-7), case of the petitioner was duly considered and recommended for revision of pay scale for which the petitioner was found entitled. However, despite there being no dispute about the eligibility, competence and entitlement of the petitioner for the prescribed pay scale of Librarian, the actual benefit thereof was not granted to him and that too, without disclosing any reason. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that since the petitioner could not come to the Court at an earlier point of time, apprehending unwarranted action against him at the hands of respondent authorities, arrears of pay scales may be restricted to a period of 38 months, before filing the writ petition. He prays for allowing the writ petition, issuing appropriate directions to the respondent authorities.
(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner is coming to the court at highly belated stage and was not entitled for the relief being sought. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition. Similarly, learned counsel for respondent-University submits that although the respondent-University issued communication Annexure P-3 granting full fledge approval to the appointment of the petitioner and his eligibility as well as entitlement were not in dispute, yet he was not entitled for the relief being claimed at this belated stage. He further submits that petitioner was sleeping over the matter and now at this belated stage, he filed the writ petition which was not maintainable. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment : dated 4.9.2012 passed by this Court in CWP No. 18498 of 2011 (Bal Krishan v. State of Punjab and others, 2012 4 SCT 712). He prays for dismissal of the writ petition.;