AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajiv Sharma, Judge
In sequel to order dated 30th August, 2011, respondent No. 2 has filed the supplementary affidavit. Paragraphs No. 3 and 4 of the supplementary affidavit read thus:
That it is humbly submitted that though the petitioner was appointed in January 1986 and was drawing less pay than his junior yet he represented against the anomaly in his pay only in the year 2005. However, it has been inadvertently averred in the reply that the petitioner had consented to receive less pay which is regretted, as it was interpreted to be an implied consent.
That the deponent is not competent to remove the anomaly in the pay of the petitioner. However, after going through the records the deponent is of the view that the case is required to be considered at the level of the Government sympathetically. Therefore, the case of the petitioner shall again be forwarded within two days to the respondent No. 1 by the deponent to re-examine the matter to take decision in the matter in a time bound manner.
In view of the contents of the paragraphs quoted hereinabove, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to do the needful, as undertaken and the anomaly be removed, within a period of eight weeks from today. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.