- (1.) Petitioner is seeking the quashing of, what has been referred to in the petition as, an order, dated 23.05.2011 (Annexure P-6) which is, in fact, a reply given to the counsel for the petitioner, to the legal notice served by him upon the respondents. By way of the said reply, the claim of the petitioner to be entitled to fixation of her pay at the stage of L 13,125/-, as on 01.04.2008, has been rejected.
(2.) The background of the matter is that the petitioner, who initially joined as a Clerk with respondent no.2 on 15.02.1994, eventually reached the post of Superintendent, by way of various promotions, on 23.06.1993. Thereafter, vide order dated 30.04.2007, (Annexure P-1),the petitioner was posted as Assistant Secretary in the grade of L 7880-11660+1000 (SP) as a stop gap arrangement, upon the retirement of the previous incumbent on the post. Though the petitioner has tried to project that she was actually promoted to the said post, however, the respondents in their reply have clarified, as is also discernible from the verna cular version of Annexure P-1, that the appointment was actually by way of a stop gap arrangement only, pending recruitment of a new Assistant Secretary, which post was being advertised for appointment by direct recruitment.
(3.) Be that as it may, subsequently the petitioner herself was appointed by way of direct recruitment on the same post on 15.04.2008 and vide order dated 27.01.2009 (Annexure P-3), her pay was protected w.e.f. 15.04.2008 at the stage of L 13,125/-.;