WRIT PETITION 10558 of 2010 on 16 October 1996

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL]

The petitioner is working as an Assistant Oil SeedDevelopment Officer in the Department of Agriculture, Government ofPunjab. He seeks a Mandamus for his placement in the higher payscale of `12000-16350 w.e.f. 16.10.1996 on completion of 16 years'service in terms of the Government instructions andrecommendations of the Director, Agriculture, Punjab vide Memodated 25.06.2007 [Annexure P-6].

The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit. The onlyobjection taken against the petitioner is that earlier he waserroneously granted more than two years' study leave to which hewas not entitled and as such an order for recovery of `1,65,201/- waspassed against him which has been challenged by him before thisCourt inCWP No. 3413 of 2007 wherein recovery has been stayed.The aforesaid stand taken by the respondents is also discerniblefrom Para 14 of the reply/affidavit which reads as under:- “14. That the case of placement of petitioner in pay scale of Rs.12,000-16350/- w.e.f. 16.10.1996 is pending forwant of recovery of amount of over payment made to himfor the period of extra-ordinary leave from 30.11.1993 to09.05.1995 and also due to the case pending for decisionin Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh,on the issue”.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of theconsidered view that the petitioner, if otherwise found eligible andentitled for the grant of higher pay scale, can not be denied the samemerely because he has availed his legal remedy of right byapproaching this Court against the order of recovery.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed and therespondents are directed to decide the claim of the petitionerregarding the grant of higher pay scale w.e.f. 16.10.1996 and in casehe is found eligible, to grant the same from the due date with allconsequential benefits. It is, however, directed that in case theresultant arrears payable to the petitioner are more than `1,65,201/-,in that event, the respondents shall be entitled to withhold thepayment of such arrears to the extent of the said amount and thebalance amount shall be released within three months from the datea certified copy of this order is received. Suffice it to mention that theentitlement of the petitioner towards payment of withheld arrears tothe extent of `1,65,201/- shall depend upon the outcome of CWP No.3413 of 2007.

Disposed of. Dasti.

July 12, 2011. dinesh

( SURYA KANT )JUDGE