AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Surjit Singh, J.—Heard and gone through the record.
Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of her pay fixation, Annexure P-4, which has resulted in reduction of her pay from Rs. 8275/- to Rs. 8000/- as on 1.1.1996. Petitioner had been working as Senior Assistant for more than 23 years as on 1.1.1996, from which date pay scales were revised. Her unrevised pay-scale was Rs. 1800-3200. Revised pay-scale of the post held by the Petitioner was Rs. 6100-9400. Admittedly, her pay in the unrevised pay scale was Rs. 2460/-, inclusive of one stagnation increment that was given to her on completion of 23 years service. Her pay was fixed vide order, copy Annexure RA-VI, which is dated 17.6.1998. As per this order of pay fixation, her basic pay was Rs. 2460/. Formula of pay fixation Whetherreportersofthelocalpapersmaybeallowedtoseethejudgment was applied and her existing emoluments were worked out at Rs. 8017 as on 1.1.1996 and her pay in the revised pay-scale was fixed at Rs. 8275/-.
Apparently, there was some arithmetical mistake in Annexure RA-VI, because total emoluments of the Petitioner in the pre-revised pay-scale were miscalculated at Rs. 8017/-. Total of various items referred to in columns No. 4 to 9 in Annexure RA-VI comes to 7217/-, but it has been wrongly shown to be 8017/- and it is because of this miscalculation that the pay of the Petitioner was fixed at Rs. 8275/- vide Annexure RA-VI.
It appears that because of aforesaid arithmetical error, the order of pay fixation Annexure RA-VI, was revised vide impugned order Annexure P-4 and as per this order emoluments of the Petitioner were correctly calculated at Rs. 7481/- and her pay was fixed at Rs. 7500/- as on 1.1.1996 in the pay scale of the lower post and then her notional pay in the lower pay scale, by adding one increment, was fixed at Rs. 7750/- and thereafter it was fixed at the next higher stage, i.e. by virtue of FR-22(I)(a)(i). This notional increase and then increase to the higher stage was given, because of the Petitioner having been promoted to higher post of Senior Assistant. Initially she was a clerk. Thus, there is nothing wrong with the impugned order Annexure P-4. Hence, the petition is dismissed.