1. Leave to amend the cause-title of the petition by correcting the designation of respondent No.2, is granted. The necessary amendment be carried out, forthwith.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, with the following prayers:
"a) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and Page 1 of 4 C/SCA/6010/2015 ORDER allow this petition.
b) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondent herein to consider the application of the present petitioner dated 04.01.2014 as per the law and grant the benefits accordingly in stipulated time.
c) Such other and further orders as Your Lordships may deem just, fit and expedient be granted in favour of the petitioner.
d) Costs of this petition be provided for to the petitioner."
3. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Radio Mechanic in the year 1980. Thereafter, in the year 1986, he was promoted to the post of Police Wireless Sub-Inspector (PWSI) and accordingly, his pay-scale was set at Rs.2000-60-2300-75-3200 w.e.f. 01.01.1995. In the year 2010, the petitioner completed twenty-four years of service and, as per the Government Resolution dated 17.02.2010, he became qualified for the grant of second higher grade pay-scale. However, from 2010 to 2014, the petitioner did not receive any enhancement Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/6010/2015 ORDER in his salary. The petitioner received an order dated 23.10.2013, informing him that he was getting salary as per the first higher grade pay-scale with effect from 10.11.1989, instead of 01.01.1995, therefore, recovery was sought to be made from him. The petitioner deposited the amount of difference, that is, Rs.19,280/-, on 16.11.2013. The petitioner made a representation regarding the grant of second higher pay-scale to respondent No.2, on 04.01.2014 which has not been decided so far. In the above background, the petitioner has approached this Court making the prayers reproduced hereinabove.
4. Mr.Ankit S. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner states, upon instructions, that the interest of justice would be met, if respondent No.2- Director General of Police is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, within a time-bound period.
5. Mr.Swapneshwar Goutam, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing on an advance copy of the petition, has no objection to this request. Page 3 of 4
6. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
Respondent No.2-Director General of Police is directed to consider and decide the representation dated 04.01.2014 made by the petitioner, in accordance with law and within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. The petition is disposed of, in the above terms, without entering into the merits of the case.
Direct Service of this order is permitted.
(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) ARG Page 4 of 4