Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamal Chand Bhardwaj vs Union Of India And Others on 26 April, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 14872-CAT of 2003
Date of Decision: April 26, 2011
Kamal Chand Bhardwaj
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR
MR JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MS
MS JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate,
for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent No. 5.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
M.M. KUMAR,
KUMAR, J.
1. The only question of law raised in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, is whether the pay of the senior can be fixed in a lower grade than his junior. The unsuccessful applicant-petitioner has challenged order dated 12.8.2003 (P-19) passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') rejecting his claim that by virtue of seniority he is entitled to draw higher pay than the private respondents who are admittedly junior to him. The Tribunal has upheld the orders dated 21/27.9.1995 (P-4), 4.10.2000/7.11.2001 (P-10 colly) and 18/20.12.2001 (P-11). C.W.P. No. 14872-CAT of 2003 (O&M) 2
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.3.1987 the applicant-petitioner was appointed as a Field Assistant in the Statistical Cell of the Union Territory of Chandigarh in the pay scale of ` 450-800. At that point of time, Sarvshri Karan Pal Singh and Duni Chand-respondent Nos. 5 and 6 respectively, were working on the post of 'Computers' in the pay scale of ` 400-660. They were promoted as Field Assistants in the scale of ` 450-800 w.e.f. 5.2.1988 and 27.3.1989 respectively. In this manner, in the cadre of Field Assistant, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are junior to the applicant-petitioner.
3. On 30.3.1990, the respondent Chandigarh Administration passed an order confirming the applicant-petitioner on the post of Field Assistant in the scale of `1200-30-1560-EB-40-2040. In the same order, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were also confirmed on the post of 'Computer' in the scale of `975-25-1150-EB-30-1540 (P-1). Consequent upon adoption of Punjab Pay pattern by the Chandigarh Administration w.e.f. 1.1.1986 notionally and w.e.f. 1.4.1991 effectively, vide order dated 12.3.1992, the pay of the applicant- petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 5 and 6 was re-fixed. The applicant-petitioner was granted the pay scale of `1200-2100 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 on the post of Field Assistant as against the un-revised scale of ` 450-800, whereas respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were placed in the revised scale of `950-1800 with initial start of `1,000/- as against the un-revised scale of `400-660 on the post of 'Computer' (P-2).
4. It is pertinent to mention that on 21.11.1986 the State of Punjab has carried out an exercise of re-structuring of the cadres of Statistical Assistants, Investigators, Inspectors, Field Assistants C.W.P. No. 14872-CAT of 2003 (O&M) 3 Grade-I and Grade-II and Computers. As a result thereof the cadres of Field Assistant Grade-I & Grade-II and that of Computers were designated as Investigators. It was further provided that 60% of the posts were to be kept in the old pay scale of `450-800 till the incumbents were promoted to the post of Statistical Assistant and 40% posts of Field Assistants were changed to Statistical Assistant in the pay scale of `570-1080, which was subsequently revised to `1640-2925. However, this was not adopted by the Chandigarh Administration.
5. Since the applicant-petitioner was the senior-most Field Assistant and could be promoted as Statistical Assistant, he filed OA No. 898/PB/94 seeking promotion to the post of Statistical Assistant in view of restructure of cadre in the State of Punjab. A statement was made by the respondents before the Tribunal that as and when the post of Statistical Assistant would fall vacant, the same shall be filled in accordance with the rules and the applicant-petitioner would be considered for promotion.
6. On 12.10.1994, the respondent Chandigarh Administration issued a notification converting the nomenclature of the posts of 'Field Assistant' and 'Computer' as 'Investigator' and placing them in three-grade pay structure in the ratio of 20:40:40 i.e. ` 950-1800 with initial start of `1000/-, `1200-2130 and ` 1500- 2700 respectively. A further rider was also imposed that the scale of `1200-2130 was to be given to those who have rendered minimum 5 years of regular service as Investigator in the cadre, whereas the scale of ` 1500-2700 was available to those who have rendered minimum 10 years regular service as Investigator in the cadre (P-3).
C.W.P. No. 14872-CAT of 2003 (O&M) 4
7. To give effect to the notification dated 12.10.1994 (P-3), the pay and seniority of the petitioner as well as private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 was re-fixed vide order dated 21/27.9.1995 (P-4). The petitioner has been shown holding the post of Field Assistant in the scale of `1200-2130 w.e.f. 1.1.1994. While fixing his pay in the revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1994, he has been put in the pay scale of `950-1800 with initial start of `1000/- and his basic pay was fixed at `1365+30 with next date of increment as 1.3.1994; `1410+30 with next date of increment as 1.3.1995; and `1455+30 with next date of increment as 1.3.1996. He was also designated as 'Investigator'. Shri Duni Chand-respondent No. 6 has been shown as immediate junior of the petitioner with the designation of Field Assistant in the scale of `1200-2130 w.e.f. 1.1.1994. He has also been put in the pay scale of `950-1800 with initial start of `1000/- and his basic pay was fixed at `1320+10 with next date of increment as 1.5.1994; `1365+10 with next date of increment as 1.5.1995; and `1410/- with next date of increment as 1.5.1996. He was also designated as 'Investigator'. In the case of Shri Karan Pal Singh-respondent No. 5, he has been shown junior immediately below respondent No. 6 as Field Assistant in the scales of `1200- 2130 & `1500-2700 w.e.f. 13.11.1994. He has also been put in the pay scale of `950-1800 with initial start of `1000/-. But his basic pay was fixed at `1365/- with next date of increment as 1.11.1994; `1410/- with next date of increment as 13.11.1994; and `1500/- with next date of increment as 1.11.1995. He was also designated as 'Investigator'. It is also important to mention that in remarks column it has been stated that the petitioner has completed 5 years service on 10.5.1992 and on the date of passing of order he had C.W.P. No. 14872-CAT of 2003 (O&M) 5 completed 8 years service and his pay has been fixed in Item No. 2 i.e. forty percent. In the case of respondent No. 6 it is stated that he has completed five years of his service on 20.5.1991 and since he has completed 9 years of service, his pay has been fixed in Item No. 2 i.e. forty percent. Against the name of respondent No. 5 it has been recorded that he has completed ten years of service on 13.11.1994 and his pay has been fixed in Item No. 3 i.e. forty percent in the scale of `1500-2700. The relevant extract of the order dated 21.9.1995 is reproduced as under:-
Sr. Name & Date of Revised Basic pay Pay fixed in Next date Remarks No. present joining and pay on 1.1.94 the revised of designation appointment scale scale of pay increment of the as w.e.f. w.e.f. 1.1.94 official Computer/ 1.1.94 along with Field present pay Assistant scale
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
1 & xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 2
3. Sh. Kamal 10.3.87 (Rs. Rs. Rs.1365+30 Rs.1365+30 1.3.94 Designated Chand, 450-800) 950- as Field 1800 Rs.1410+30 1.3.95 Investigator Assistant (with as he has Rs. 1200- initial Rs.1455+30 1.3.96 completed 2130 w.e.f. start of five years of 1.1.94 Rs. his service 1000/-) on 10.5.92.
Now he has completed 8 years of his service his pay has been fixed in item No. 2(40) forty percent.
C.W.P. No. 14872-CAT of 2003 (O&M) 6
4. Sh. Duni 20.5.86 -do- Rs.1320+10 Rs.1320+10 1.5.94 Designated Chand, as Field Rs.1365+10 1.5.95 Invetigator Assistant as he has (Rs. 1200- Rs.1410 1.5.96 completed 2130) w.e.f. five years of 1.1.94 his service on 20.5.91 i.e. he has completed 9 years of his service, his pay has been fixed in item No. 2(4) forty percent.
5. Sh. Karan 13.11.84 Rs. Rs.1365/- Rs.1365/- 1.11.94 Designated Pal Singh 950- as Field 1800 Rs.1410/- Rs.1410/- 13.11.94 Investigator Assistant (with as he has (Rs. 1200- initial Rs.1500/- 1.11.95 completed 2130) start of ten years of Rs. his service (Rs. 1500- 1000/-) on 13.11.94, 2700) w.e.f. his pay has 13.11.94 been fixed in item No. 3(4)) forty percent in the scale of Rs. 1500- 2700.
8. Shri Duni Chand-respondent No. 6 filed OA No. 786/CH/98 before the Tribunal claiming seniority over and above the petitioner on the basis of higher pay scale granted to him. However, the said OA was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 28.9.1998 holding that on the basis of length of service one person junior in a particular post may receive higher pay but that itself is neither the criterion nor a reason to place him above another person, on the promotional post of Field Assistant (P-8).
9. On 7.3.1995, the petitioner made a representation pointing out that his pay has been wrongly fixed, inasmuch as, his juniors Sarvshri Karan Pal Singh and Duni Chand were placed in higher scales (P-5). He also challenged order dated 21/27.9.1995 C.W.P. No. 14872-CAT of 2003 (O&M) 7 (P-4) before the Tribunal by filing OA No. 1208/CH/95. However, during the pendency of the said OA, the respondent Chandigarh Administration issued notifications dated 4.10.2000 and 7.11.2001 amending the earlier notification dated 12.10.1994. In the said notifications the posts of Field Assistant and Computer were clubbed and shown as Investigator. But the three-grade scales remained unchanged. The petitioner also challenged notification dated 4.10.2000 by filing OA No. 34/CH/2002. However, the Tribunal dismissed both the OAs, namely, OA No. 1208-CH-95, vide order dated 6.6.2002 (P-12) and OA No. 34/CH/2002, vide order dated 4.7.2003 (P-13).
10. On 18/20.12.2001, the respondent Chandigarh Administration passed yet another order superseding all the earlier orders dated 15.5.1992, 12.8.1992, 27.9.1995 and 19.2.1998 and refixed the pay of the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the following manner:
"Sr. Name & Pay on date Revised Pay refixed in the Remarks No. Designation on option of scale w.e.f. revised scale existing 1.1.1986 1.1.1986 & 1.1.1996 scale & and Date of 1.1.1996 joining
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
1. Sh. Kamal Rs. 450 Rs. 950- 19.3.87 = 1000 Initial Fixation Chand (450-800) 1800 initial 1.3.88 = 1025 Investigator 19.3.87 start of Rs.
1.3.89 = 1050
1000/- 1.3.90 = 1075
1.3.91 = 1100
1.3.92 = 1125
1.3.93 = 1125
1.3.93 = 1160
1.3.94 = 1200 1st proficiency after 8
1.3.95 = 1240 years of Revised Scale
19.3.95 = 1280 (50%)
1.1.96 = 4020
1.1.96 = 4400
Rs. 4400- 1.3.96 = 4550
7000 1.3.97 = 4700
1.3.98 = 4850
1.3.99 = 5000
1.3.2000= 5160 Date of next meet
C.W.P. No. 14872-CAT of 2003 (O&M) 8
1.3.2001= 5320 1.3.2002
2. Sh. Karan Rs. 420/- Rs. 950- 1.1.86 = 1000 Initial fixation
Pal Singh, (400-660) 1800 initial 1.1.87 = 1025
Investigator 13.11.84 start of Rs. 1.1.88 = 1050
1000/- 1.1.89 = 1075
1.1.90 = 1100
1.1.91 = 1200 After completion
Rs. 1200- years of service
2130 cadre
1.1.92=1230
1.1.93=1240+30AP
1.1.94=1280+30AP
1.1.95=1320+30AP
Rs. 4400- 1.1.96=4260 Revised scale (50%)
7000 1.1.96=4400
1.1.97=4550
1.1.98=4700
1.1.99=4850
20.5.99=5000 **The pay has brought at
1.5.2000=5160 par Sh. Duni Chand junior
1.5.2001=5320 official draw higher per his
senior officer No. 4387-
F&PO(7)/90/18 dated
04.09.90 date of next
meet 01.05.2002
3 Sh Duni Rs. 400/- Rs. 950- 20.05.86=1000 Initial fixation
Chand (400-600) 1800 initial 1.5.87=1025
Investigator 20.05.86 start of Rs. 1.5.88=1050
1000/- 1.5.89=1075
1.5.90=1100
1.5.91=1125
Rs. 1200- 20.5.91=1200 After completion
2130 years of service
cadre
1.5.92=1230
1.1.93=1200+30AP
1.5.93=1240+30
1.5.94=1280+30
1.5.95=1320+30
Rs. 4020- 1.1.96=4260 ACP placement higher
6200 1.5.96=4400 scale of Rs. 3120-6200
(personal 1.5.97=4550 retain in the per scale of
scale) 1.5.98=4700 Rs. 4020-6200 with one
1.5.99=4850 increment
20.5.99=5000
1.5.2000=5160 Date of next increment
1.5.2001=5320 01.5.2002"
11. Challenging the order dated 18/20.12.2001 (P-11), the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 5 and 6 filed their separate original applications before the Tribunal. The petitioner filed OA No. 717/CH/2002, whereas respondent Nos. 5 and 6 filed O.A. Nos. 792/CH/2002 and 837/CH/2002 respectively. C.W.P. No. 14872-CAT of 2003 (O&M) 9
12. Along with the reply to the original application filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have placed on record a notification dated 5.12.2000 whereby the pay scale of the Investigators of the Statistical Cell were further revised w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The relevant extract of the said notification reads thus:
Sr. Name of the Existing Revised Remarks No. Post/ Scale Scale Category
1. Investigator 950-1800 Rs. 3120-
(with initial 5160 (with of Rs. initial start 1000/-) of Rs.
20% 3220/-) 50%
1200-2130 Rs. 4400-
(40%) 7000 (50%)
1500-2700 (with 5 year
(40%) experience)
The designation and the revised equivalent of the un-revised pay scale of officials working as Investigator as on 1st January, 1996 shall be protected as a measure personal to them. ........
The posts in the higher scale of Rs. 4400-7000 shall be filled up by placement from amongst the Investigator who have an experience of working as such for a minimum period of 5 years in the cadre."
13. Justifying the fixation of pay of respondent No. 5 it has been stated that after completion of 5 years of service as Investigator he was given selection grade of `1200-2130 from 1.1.1991 and his pay was fixed at `1200/-. Similar selection grade was granted to respondent No. 6 w.e.f. 20.5.1991 after completion of 5 years service in the cadre. According to the official respondents, the posts of Field Assistant and Computer were merged/amalgamated and designated as Investigator in three- C.W.P. No. 14872-CAT of 2003 (O&M) 10 grade scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986 vide notification dated 4.10.2000/7.11.2001. However, no Investigator was eligible to be placed in the grade of `1500-2700. Only two incumbents were eligible to be placed in category No. 2 i.e. in the scale of `1200- 2130. Upon further revision of scales vide notification dated 5.12.2000, the petitioner and another Investigator were placed in the scale of `4400-7000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and the remaining were placed in the scale of `3120-5150 with initial start of `3,220/-. The reasoning given for not fixing the pay of the petitioner equivalent to his junior is that he has not completed 5 years of service as Investigator on 1.1.1991, whereas respondent Nos. 5 and 6 completed the same. It has further been explained that the petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant on 19.3.1987, which post was lateron designated as Investigator. Therefore, he became Investigator from 19.3.1987. On the other hand respondent Nos. 5 and 6 joined service earlier to him i.e. on 1.1.1986 and 20.5.1986 respectively and they were given the grade of `1200-2130 from 1.1.1991 and 20.5.1991 after completion of 5 years of service as Investigator. According to the official respondents, the petitioner was not entitled to the said scale prior to 19.3.1992. In regard to grant of the scale of `1500-2700, it has been stated that the same could be granted only after completion of 10 years of regular service as Investigator in a cadre, which was to be counted w.e.f. 1.1.1986 as the said post came into existence by amalgamation of the posts of Field Assistant and Computer with effect from the said date.
14. With regard to the other grievance of the petitioner for not designating him as Statistical Assistant and placing him in the C.W.P. No. 14872-CAT of 2003 (O&M) 11 revised scale of `1800-3200 w.e.f. 19.3.1987, it has been denied that the petitioner was entitled to the said post as he was appointed as Field Assistant on 19.3.1987. Moreover, the said dispute was raised by him in OA No. 898 of 1994, which was decided on 9.3.1995. A statement was given before the Tribunal in the said OA that as and when any vacant post of Statistical Assistant would be available the same shall be filled up in accordance with the rules.
15. The Tribunal clubbed the original applications filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 together and allowed the same vide order dated 7.8.2003 (P-18). While dealing with the original applications filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6, the Tribunal interpreted the notifications dated 12.10.1994 and 4.10.2000/7.11.2001 and made the following observations:
" The main issue, therefore, to be decided in this case is whether the interpretation of the circulars cited above can mean that all persons joined together in the cadre of Investigators w.e.f. 1.1.1986 will be placed on an equal footing in the next higher grade. Al those who became Investigators were either Computers of Field Assistants and all of them were merged into one cadre of investigators w.e.f. 1.1.1986. It is not open to the Govt., while merging such cadres and laying down further chances of promotion, to wish away the previous service rendered in an equivalent grade. Since all Field Assistants were made Investigators only by change of designation on 1.1.1986, they all cannot be put on an equal footing for further promotions. Those who joined C.W.P. No. 14872-CAT of 2003 (O&M) 12 earlier must be given the benefit of their past service; otherwise, there would be great injustice to those who had joined the service earlier. The benefit of the earlier service could have been denied for the next higher grade only if the new grade of Investigators was a promotion from the earlier grade of Computers-Field Assistants. This is not the case here, as all Computers and Field Assistants got the scale of Rs. 950-1800 merely by virtue of revision of pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986. They were not given any higher grade by virtue of any upgradation/promotion. We therefore, cannot agree that the circular dated 12.10.94 and the one dated 4.10.2000/7.11.2001 are legally correct in mentioning that the next higher grade would be given only on completion of a minimum of 5 years service as Investigators. The intention should be to promote all those who have completed a minimum of 5 years service in an equivalent grade. In fact, the department itself applied this very principle while granting the applicant the second grade w.e.f. 13.11.89 rightly on his completing 5 years of service in that equivalent grade. Further on completion of 10 years from his date of joining on 13.11.84, he got the highest of the three grades w.e.f. 13.11.94. After having given these grades for several years, it is highly improper to now construe the meaning of these circulars in such a narrow manner and withdraw the benefit correctly granted in the past by virtue of the benefit of the past service. It can be argued C.W.P. No. 14872-CAT of 2003 (O&M) 13 on behalf of the respondents that the applicants have not specially challenged the validity of the aforementioned circulars and have not prayed for quashing them. But the court can grant such a relief under the prayer "any other relief deemed fit by the court", as made in para 8(iii) of the relief clause.
In view of the above we come to the conclusion that the circulars dated 12.10.94, Annexure A-2 and dated 4.10.2000/7.11.2001 (Annexure A-4) need to be modified to the extent they mention that the second and third grades would be available after a minimum of 5 years of regular service as 'Investigators', instead of 5 years as 'Investigator' of the equivalent post of Computer/Field Assistant, which were the designation prior to their merger as Investigators."
16. The Tribunal accordingly allowed the original applications filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 by quashing the order refixing their pay on promotion to second grade w.e.f. 1.1.1991 and directed the respondents to continue with the old date of promotion i.e. to the grade of `1200-2130 w.e.f. 13.11.1989 and to the grade of `1500-2700 or equivalent of `5000-8000 (revised) w.e.f. 13.11.94 in the case of respondent No. 5. In the similar way, respondent No. 6 has been held entitled to the two higher grades from the dates he completed five and ten years respectively from the date of appointment as computer/Field Assistant.
17. The Tribunal, however, vide order dated 12.8.2003, dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner (P-19). In the opinion of the Tribunal the seniority was not the only criteria for C.W.P. No. 14872-CAT of 2003 (O&M) 14 fixation of the pay but completion of 5 and 10 years of service was also mandatory. According to the Tribunal since the petitioner joined service in March 1987 he was entitled to higher scale of `1200-2130 in March 1992, whereas respondent Nos. 5 and 6 by virtue of their length of service got the higher scales earlier than him. Therefore, the Tribunal has held that it cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. In that regard the Tribunal has relied upon its judgment rendered in OA No. 34/CH/2002, decided on 4.7.2002, holding that "on the basis of length of service one person junior in a particular post may receive higher pay".
18. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book with their able assistance, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner. The question of law posed in the opening para of this judgment is no longer res integra. In the case of Union of India v. P. Jagdish, Jagdish, (1997) 3 SCC 176, 176 Hon'ble the Supreme Court after discussing the fundamental rules regarding stepping up of pay has held that the pay of senior officer in the higher post is required to be stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for the junior officer in that higher post. It has further been held that the stepping up is required to be done with effect from the date of promotion or appointment of the junior officer. The principle of stepping up becomes applicable when the junior officer and senior officer belong to same category and post from which they have been promoted and in the promoted cadre the junior officer on being promoted later the senior officer gets a higher pay. In the case of Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Sujit Baran Mukherjee, Mukherjee, (1997) 11 SCC 463, 463, while dealing with a C.W.P. No. 14872-CAT of 2003 (O&M) 15 controversy of stepping up of pay, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that senior is entitled to stepping up of pay with reference to the junior's pay if the senior as well as the junior discharge the same duties under the same responsibility and not in different circumstances. In the case of Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana and others v. Ram Sarup Ganda and others (Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 20264 of 2004, decided on 2.8.2006, 2.8.2006 Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that if there is any anomaly to the effect that the senior Government servants are receiving lesser pay than their juniors, who entered the service from a different source of recruitment, certainly such senior Government servants are entitled to stepping up of their pay in order to bring them on par with the salary which is being received by their juniors. Similarly, a Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us, M.M. Kumar, J. was a member) in the case of Mrs. Krishna Goyal v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana (C.W.P. No. 6609 of 2006, decided on 3.8.2006) has held that junior cannot draw higher pay than his senior and the pay of senior has to be stepped up. In the aforementioned case, reliance was placed on another Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Chajju Ram Hans v. Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana Haryana at Chandigarh (C.W.P. No. 16117 of 2004, decided on 1.9.2005).
1.9.2005) In Chajju Ram Hans's case (supra), (supra) the Division Bench relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Bahadur Singh (Civil Appeal No. 9943 of 1995, decided on 25.4.2001) wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that senior employee cannot be paid less than his junior colleagues. In a recent judgment on the issue rendered in the case of Gurcharan C.W.P. No. 14872-CAT of 2003 (O&M) 16 Singh Grewal v. Punjab State Electricity Electricity Board, Board, (2009) 3 SCC 94, 94 Hon'ble the Supreme Court went a step ahead and held that senior cannot be paid less than his junior even if anomaly in senior's pay is due to difference in incremental benefits. In that case, the senior's pay was directed to be stepped up with reference to higher pay of his junior. It is, thus, clear that the ratio of above judgments are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It has come on record that the petitioner has throughout remained senior to respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Only because of length of service, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have been granted higher grades. Therefore, the pay of the petitioner also needs to be stepped up equivalent to them.
19. As a sequel to the above discussion, this petition succeeds. The order dated 12.8.2003, passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The respondents are directed to re-fix the pay of the petitioner equivalent to his juniors with all consequential benefits. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) BAHRI) April 26, 26, 2011 2011 JUDGE Pkapoor