- (1.) Petitioner, namely Baldev Singh Bhatia, who retired as Deputy Circle Education Officer, Jalandhar, has filed the present writ petition for quashing the order dated 23.07.2012 (Annexure P-7) and order dated 26.03.2013 (Annexure P-10), whereby the claim of the petitioner for correction in his pay fixation has been declined. Petitioner prays that he should be granted the benefits of Rule 7 of the Revised Pay Rules 1998, which was notified by the Punjab Government, vide Notification dated 16.01.1998 and also grant the benefit of bunching increments, in terms of proviso of the Rule 7 along with all consequential benefits. Petitioner along with other employees had already approached this Court by way of filing of CWP No.12400 of 1989 titled as "Raj Kumar Sachdeva and others vs State of Punjab", claiming revision of pay scale w.e.f. 01.11.1971 instead of 16.07.1975 along with consequential benefits. The said writ petition was decided, in terms of CWP No.2208 of 1989, titled as "Lekh Raj Khera and others vs State of Punjab and others" on 24.03.2009.
(2.) Since the said order was not implemented, therefore, the petitioner filed COCP No.1888 of 2011 and after the notice of motion, the pay of the petitioner was revised w.e.f. 01.11.1971 instead of 16.07.1975, vide a speaking order dated 08.11.2011 (corrigendum dated 21.11.2011) {Annexure P-3}. However, while re-fixing the pay, the benefit of proviso (ii) of the Rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 (in short 'the Rules 1998') was not granted to the petitioner. Consequently, wrong pay fixation was made. The petitioner made representation dated 21.12.2011 (Annexure P-4) before the authorities for the correct pay fixation, but to no effect. While disposing of said COCP on 17.01.2012 (Annexure P-5), this Court directed the respondents to consider the representation dated 21.12.2011 (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner and pass appropriate order as early as possible preferably within four months. Now, the impugned orders have been passed, declining the benefit of Rule 7 of the Rules 1998.
(3.) The State in its reply has taken the stand that pay of the petitioner has been rightly fixed and the impugned orders have been correctly passed. The pay has been fixed, in terms of the Rule 7 of the Rules 1998. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file. Rule 7 of Rules 1998 is reproduced as under: "7. Fixation of Pay in the Revised Scale:- The pay of a Government employee who opts or is deemed too have opted for the revised scale in terms of the provisions or these ruels shall, unless in any case the Government by special order otherwise directs, be fixed in the following manner, namely:- (i) an amount representing forty percent of the basis pay in the existing scale shall be added to the "existing emoluments" of the employee; and (ii) after the existing emoluments have been so increased, the pay shall thereafter be fixed in the revised scale at the stage next above the amount of the existing emoluments so computed, if it falls between two stages: Provided that :- (a) if the minimum of the revised scale is more than the amount so arrived at, the pay shall be fixed at the minimum of the revised scale; (b) if the amount so arrived at is higher than the maximum of the revised scale, the amount in excess of the maximum of the revised scale shall be treated at personal pay which shall be absorbed in future increments and shall be reckoned as pay for all purposed; Provided further that where in the fixation of pay, the pay at more than three consecutive stages in an existing scale gets bunched, that is to say, gets fixed in the revised scale at the same stage, the pay in the revised scale of such of those employees who are drawing pay beyond the first three consecutive stages in the existing scale shall be stepped up by the grant of increment(s) in the revised scale in the following manner, namely:- (a) for the Government employees drawing pay from the fourth up to the sixth stage in the existing scale: by on increment ......." Petitioner claims the benefit of proviso of Rule 7 of the Rules 1998, which laid down that wherein fixation of pay, the pay at more than three consecutive stages in an existing scale gets bunched, that is to say, gets fixed in the revised scale at the same stage, the pay in the revised scale of such of those employees who are drawing pay beyond the first three consecutive stages in the existing scale shall be stepped up by the grant of increment(s) in the revised scale in the following manner, namely:- for the Government employees drawing pay from the fourth up to the sixth stage in the existing scale by granting one increment.;