M.M.Kumar, J. - (1.) The petitioner has been working on the post of Court Secretary with effect from 1.12.1995, as is evident from the order dated 13.12.1995 (P-5) when she was promoted as such. One Shri Hardev Singh was admittedly junior to her as his name figure at Sr. No. 4 in the order of promotion. It is pertinent to mention that as Reader also the petitioner was senior to Shri Hardev Singh, as she was confirmed as permanent Reader with effect from 1.1.1991 and Shri Hardev Singh was confirmed as such with effect from 1.5.1991. On the ground that Shri Hardev Singh, junior to the petitioner, has been granted the benefit of stepping up of pay, vide order dated 14.10.1998, she filed a representation for the same relief. She has placed reliance on the order dated 13.10.1999 (P-7) passed in favour of Shri Hardev Singh. A series of representations were filed by the petitioner, which have been placed on record as Annexure P-8 (Colly). However, the representations made by the petitioner were rejected, vide order dated 18.8.2004 (P-1), which was conveyed to the petitioner by the Registrar Administration of this Court. Eventually the petitioner filed the instant petition with a prayer for quashing order dated 18.8.2004 (P-1) and has sought further direction to the respondent to give her the benefit of stepping up from the date it has been accorded to her junior along with all consequential benefits. The petitioner has also placed reliance on a detailed Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Chhaju Ram Hans v. Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (C.W.P. No. 16117 of 2004, decided on 1.9.2005).
(2.) The respondent has filed the reply and taken the stand that the basic pay of the petitioner at the time of appointment as Reader was Rs. 2,200/- whereas Shri Hardev Singh was getting Rs. 2,640/-. It is claimed that the basic pay of the petitioner being much less than that of Shri Hardev Singh, she was granted minimum of the scale of Reader and Shri Hardev Singh was given much higher pay scale keeping in view the basic pay of the feeder cadre (Superintendent Grade-II). A comparative chart has been relied upon by extracting various pay scales of both the incumbents (R-2). We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length and are of the view that the controversy raised in the instant petition is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Chajju Ram Hans's case (supra). It is not disputed that the pay of the petitioner and that of Shri Hardev Singh has to be fixed in accordance with the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume-I, Part-I and that Shri Hardev Singh was junior to the petitioner. It is also not disputed that he was drawing higher salary than the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed that she is entitled to fixation of her pay under Rule 4.14 (1) & (2) read with Rule 2.48 and 4.4 (a)(i) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I. The claim made by her has been rejected by passing a non-speaking order dated 18.8.2004 (P-1), which is sought to be justified in the written statement on untenable grounds. The respondent has put forward the same ground to defeat the claim of the petitioner which was taken before the Division Bench in Chajju Ram Hans's case (supra). The Division Bench after quoting Rule 4.14 (1) & (2) and Rule 4.4(a)(i) has recorded the following conclusion: A perusal of the aforesaid Rules would show that the petitioner was entitled to draw the presumptive pay of the post of Reader from the date he was officiating as such. The aforesaid pay is to be fixed on the presumption that the petitioner held the post substantively. Under these Rules, the petitioner would clearly be entitled to the re-fixation of his pay over and above the pay which was being drawn by his junior Prem Singh. The petitioner would also be entitled to all the consequential benefits. In the case of Bahadur Singh (supra), the Supreme Court examined a similar situation and held that senior employee cannot be paid less than his junior colleague. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the High Court on 18.3.2004 (Annexure P-1) is not sustainable.
(3.) In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 18.3.2004 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. The petitioner is held entitled to the re-fixation of his pay at different stages from the dates the same was granted to his junior Prem Singh. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits such as arrears of salary etc. Let the consequential benefits be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs." In view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed as the controversy is similar to the one which was raised in Chajju Ram Hans's case (supra). Accordingly, we quash order dated 18.8.2004 (P-1). The petitioner is held entitled to re-fixation of her pay at different stages from the date the same was granted to her junior Shri Hardev Singh along with all consequential benefits such as arrears of salary, increments etc. Let the consequential benefits be paid to her within a period of two months of the receipt of a certified copy of this order.;