Madan B.Lokur, J - (1.)The appellant, who appears in person, is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2001 whereby his writ petition, being CW No. 2632 of 2001 was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
(2.)The appellant had retired from service as a Reader in the University and was subsequently re-employed. According to him, he was granted an extension in service, but the learned Single Judge held that his was a case of re-employment in service. This issue was argued at length before a Division Bench and by an order dated 20th May, 2002, no infirmity was found in the order of the learned Single Judge in this regard. This issue, therefore, stands concluded against the appellant.
(3.)Another issue raised by the appellant was that with effect from 1st January, 1996 he was entitled to the benefit of the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission (for short the 5th CPC) in respect of the fixation of his salary. It was additionally contended (as is apparent from a later order of the Division Bench dated 27th May, 2002) that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the principle of equal pay for equal work for the period of his re-employment after 1st January, 1996.