S.S.Saron, J. - (1.) The petitioner in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the order dated 24.1.2006 (Annexure-P.7) whereby his claim as stated in the legal notice sent by him has been considered and declined. The petitioner also seeks the quashing of the order dated 26.4.2005 (Annexure-P.7/A) whereby his request for removal of anomaly regarding fixation of his pay vis-a-vis his junior has been considered and not acceded to. Accordingly, directions are sought for promoting the petitioner w.e.f. 1.2.2002 i.e. the date when his junior Surjit Singh (respondent No. 4) was promoted and also for reconsideration of the refixation of his basic pay in view of the anomaly therein.
(2.) The petitioner is presently working as Senior Technician in the Chemical Control Department of the National Fertilizer Limited, Nangal. He was initially selected as a Trainee on 2.4.1995 on which date Surjit Singh (respondent No. 4) also joined. The petitioner was absorbed as Technician Grade-III w.e.f. 6.2.1996 along with Surjit Singh (respondent No. 4). He was promoted as Technician Grade-II w.e.f. 6.8.1997 along with respondent No. 4. His next promotion was of Technician Grade-I w.e.f. 6.8.1998 after completion of one year service as Technician Grade-II. Respondent No. 4 was promoted along with the petitioner. The petitioner was called for interview for the post of Senior Technician along with his two other colleagues, namely, Vipan Kumar and Surjit Singh (respondent No. 4). Vipan Kumar and Surjit Singh (respondent No. 4) have been promoted whereas petitioner has not been promoted even though the petitioner is senior to Surjit Singh (respondent No. 4). Against the said promotions, the petitioner represented and had even approached this Court. On directions of this Court his representation has been considered and declined vide impugned order dated 24.1.2006 (Annexure-P.7) which is assailed. The petitioner had also approached the management of National Fertilizers Limited complaining against the anomaly in the fixation of his basic pay. He made a reference to the case of Shri Surinder Mohan Dhawan (`S.M. Dhawan' - for short) his coemployee who was drawing more basic pay than the petitioner even though the date of placement i.e. 1.1.2004 of both the employees in the present grade was the same. In fact, in the immediate preceding grade, the petitioner had been promoted about two years before S.M. Dhawan was promoted.
(3.) However, the management of National Fertilizers Limited has by order dated 26.4.2005 (Annexure-P.7/A) not acceded to the request of the petitioner as the same, it is stated, is not covered under the extant rules. The said order is also assailed.;