JUDGMENT :

Namit Kumar, J.

Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of order dated 01.08.2022 (Annexure P-19), whereby claim of the petitioner for similar basic pay which was granted to respondent No.4, has been rejected and for directing the respondents to release the arrears of retirement benefits and salary and refixation of his pension after revision of his grade pay as given to respondent No.4, along with interest and all consequential benefits.

2. Brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner had joined the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, on 07.06.1977 as Clerk and thereafter he was promoted as Junior Assistant on 01.03.1986 and further he was promoted as Officer on Special Duty (OSD) on 01.04.1999 and he retired as such on 31.10.2016 on attaining the age of superannuation and thereafter he was given two years' extension upto 31.10.2018. It has further been stated in the petition that respondent No.4 was promoted as OSD on 01.05.2006 and whereas petitioner was promoted on the said post on 01.04.1999, therefore, respondent No.4 was much junior to the petitioner. While the petitioner was in service, he was not paid his correct salary as well as grade pay throughout his service as OSD. He was granted basic pay of Rs.5800-9200 and w.e.f. 01.01.2006 he was granted revised pay scale of Rs.10300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.3800/- and whereas respondent No.4, who was OSD at Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, was granted pay scale of Rs.7880-13500 (unrevised). Thereafter, grade pay of the petitioner was revised to Rs.4200/- and was granted the pay scale of Rs.6400-10640 (unrevised) w.e.f. 01.11.2006 and afterwards he was granted the grade pay of Rs.4400/- in the pay scale of Rs.7000-10980 w.e.f. 01.04.2008 and whereas he was entitled for the pay scale of Rs.7880-13500 and grade pay of Rs.5400/- and, therefore, the petitioner submitted representation dated 21.01.2013, followed by representations dated 08.04.2015 and 10.06.2015, wherein the petitioner claimed the same pay scale of Rs.7800-13500 which was granted to respondent No.4, and in this manner, he was also not paid the correct pensionary benefits. He sent legal notice dated 18.06.2021 and in reply to the said legal notice, respondent No.1 has sought comments from respondent No.3, vide letter dated 30.09.2021, and thereafter petitioner filed CWP No.24717 of 2021, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 06.12.2021 with a direction to the respondents-authorities to consider the legal notice dated 18.06.2021 and decide the same within a period of one month and in compliance with the said order, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected, vide order dated 01.08.2022 (Annexure P19), which has been impugned in the present petition.

3. Separate replies have been filed by respondent No.3 by way of affidavit of Parshotam Lal, Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance (Establishment), Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, and respondent No.4. In the reply filed by respondent No.3, it has been stated that the claim of the petitioner is hopelessly time-barred and suffers from vice of delay and laches as the petitioner retired from service on 31.10.2018 after grant of two years' extension, and the petitioner is claiming the basic pay of Rs.7880-13500 w.e.f. 01.01.2006, which was sanctioned to respondent No.4 on his appointment as Officer on Special Duty. It has further been stated that there is no comparison of the petitioner with respondent No.4 as the petitioner was a member of the non-provincialized Corporation service and whereas respondent No.4 was a member of the provincialized service and the State Government was his appointing and controlling authority. Petitioner and respondent No.4 were governed by separate set of service rules and discharged different and distinct duties, therefore, there was no parity between petit