JUDGMENT :

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to implement the order dated 03.03.2006 (Annexure P-3), whereby the petitioner’s pay was ordered to be fixed at par with his junior and consequently grant all consequential benefits including re-fixation of salary and pension along with release of arrears with interest.

2. Brief facts, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner, who was an employee of the Punjab Government, retired from service on 30.11.2004. While he was in service, he had submitted a representation dated 16.01.2001 (Annexure P-1) seeking pay protection on the ground that his junior, namely Sh. Hardev Singh, was promoted on 30.01.1989 and his pay was fixed higher than that of the petitioner. The said representation was accepted by the respondent-department vide office order dated 03.03.2006 (Annexure P-3), whereby the pay of the petitioner was ordered to be fixed at par with his junior w.e.f. 30.01.1989. Since the petitioner had already retired from service on 30.11.2004, his case for re-fixation of salary and pension was forwarded to respondent No.4-Accountant General (A&E) of Punjab, vide letter dated 17.05.2006 and the bill of arrears of the petitioner was also sent to the Treasury Office. However, neither the salary and pension of the petitioner were re-fixed nor were any arrears released to him. The petitioner repeatedly visited the department for many years to enquire about the status of his case, but he was never given any satisfactory response. Thereafter, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 21.04.2017 to respondent No.2 regarding the status of his case, however, no reply was received. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an RTI application seeking the status of his case. From the documents so received under RTI, it was revealed that respondent No.3, vide letter dated 13.06.2006, had sent the case of revised pension along with the service book of the petitioner back to respondent No.2 for seeking clarification from the Finance Department, Punjab. However, respondent No.2 did not receive back the service book of the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner supplied a copy of his service book to respondent No.2 for implementation of order dated 03.03.2006 (Annexure P-3). Respondent No.2, vide letter dated 24.05.2021 (Annexure P-7), forwarded the same to the Punjab Government. Thereafter, respondent No.2 wrote a letter dated 03.01.2024 (Annexure P-8) to the petitioner, seeking an explanation as to why he was claiming pay parity with his junior ‘after a period of 33 years’ and why the benefit had not been availed before retirement. On receipt of the said letter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 10.01.2024 (Annexure P-9) to respondent No.2, explaining that the matter had been taken up by him way back on 16.01.2001 through his initial representation (Annexure P-1) and that the issue had already been decided in his favour vide order dated 03.03.2006 (Annexure P-3), whereby his pay was fixed at par with his junior w.e.f. 30.01.1989. However, the said order has not been implemented till date. Thereafter, the petitioner also served a legal notice dated 25.08.2025 (Annexure P- 10) upon the respondents seeking immediate implementation of the order dated 03.03.2006 but to no avail. Hence, the instant petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the fact that the claim of the petitioner seeking pay parity with his junior was allowed by the respondent-department vide its office order dated 03.03.2006 (Annexure P-3), whereby the pay of the petitioner was fixed at par with his junior w.e.f. 30.01.1989, neither the salary/pension of the petitioner has been re-fixed nor any arrears have been paid to him till date. He further submits that the petitioner has repeatedly visited the respondent-department and submit