AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Petitioner claims that he was engaged by respondent no.3 as a Permanent Secretary vide letter dated 28.12.2003, annexure-2 to the writ petition. Petitioner was paid a fixed monthly salary vide order dated 28.12.2003. At the time of filing the present writ petition, petitioner was getting a consolidated salary of Rs.15,000/- only.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since respondent no.3 is funded by the State Government under the District plan and runs under the instructions of the State Government, he filed the present writ petition for salary in the regular pay scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2011 as per the order issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, annexure-1 to the writ petition.
Learned counsel for respondent no.3, though, controverted the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, saying that petitioner was not a Permanent Secretary and no approval had been granted to his appointment.
Be that as it may, the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is permitted to file a representation before respondent no.3 ventilating his grievance and the same is directed to be decided within a stipulated time.
In such view of the matter, without adverting to the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of finally by permitting petitioner to make a detailed representation to respondent no.3 within a period of two weeks from today, ventilating his grievance, and if such representation is filed within the stipulated time, respondent no. 3 shall decide the same within a period of one month from the date of presentation of such representation, strictly in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.