JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) IS Rule 2. 3 of the Telephone Allotment Rules, 1980 which provides for the grant of preferential treatment to the officers of the Posts and Telegraphs Department vis -a -vis the other officers of the Central or State Governments violative of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this case. A few facts may be noticed.
(2.) THE petitioner was working in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department. On October 5, 1971, he was promoted as an Audit Officer. He retired after rendering more than 34 year's of service, on June 30, 1986 from the office of Accountant General (Audit), Punjab, Chandigarh. Immediately prior to his retirement, he was working in the pay scale of Rs. 840 -1200. He was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 1,200/ - plus Rs. 40/ -which had been granted to him as a stagnation increment. the pay scale of the post of Audit Officer was revised by the Government of India with effect from January 1, 1986 and raised to Rs. 2375 -3500. According to the certificate issued by the competent authority, the petitioner's basic pay was fixed at Rs. 3,300/ - with effect from January 1, 1986. Having retired, the petitioner applied for the grant of a telephone connection in the year 1988. He was registered in the Non -OYT (General Category ). On May 23, 1991, the petitioner made a request to the authorities to transfer his application from the General Category to the S. S. Category. This is a special category and ensures expeditious grant of connection. Having failed to get any favourable reasonse, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. He prays for the issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to transfer his -application from the Non -OYT (General Category) to Non -OYT S. C. Category. He further prays that the provisions in Rule 2. 3 on account of which the Department has not granted the requisite relief to him, be declared as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
(3.) AFTER hearing the petitioner who had appeared in person, a Division Bench of this Court had directed the issue of notice of motion to the respondents. Vide order dated February 13, 1992, the Bench had allowed the respondents to file the return (subject to payment of Rs. 200/ - as costs ). The writ petition was ultimately admitted on February 20, 1992. On March 16, 1992, the petitioner filed a Civil Misc. Application No. 2349 of 1992 with the prayer that the defence of the respondents be struck off as the costs awarded by the Division Bench had not been paid, This application was ordered to be heard with the main case. The petitioner did not address any arguments in this behalf at the state of the hearing of the case. However, taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, it does not appear to be necessary or proper to strike off the defence of the respondents. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.;