Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 3 as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. The petitioner was appointed as Confidential Assistant in the 2nd respondent on a temporary basis from 27.5.1991. He was later appointed as Shorthand Writer Grade-II from 30.3.1992 onwards. He was promoted as Grade-I Shorthand Writer from 1.7.1996 and thereafter as Selection Grade Shorthand Writer from 3.11.2000. He was later appointed as Selection Grade Personal Assistant to Judge and given full additional charge as Private Secretary to the Chief Justice by Exhibit P1 proceedings dated 6.11.2008. Subsequently, the petitioner was given regular promotion as Private Secretary to Judge by Exhibit P2 dated 6.1.2009. He exercised the option as provided under Rule 28 A, Part I, KSR. The petitioner opted for fixation of pay in the higher pay scale on the date of promotion and for next increment in the higher pay scale on completion of one year from the date of fixation. His pay was fixed and he was granted further postings and promotions as well. Thereafter, the petitioner noticed that there was anomaly in fixation of his pay in as much as his junior Smt. K. Laila, who was pomoted as Private Secretary to Judge from 6.2.2009, was drawing higher pay than him. The petitioner had therefore submitted Exhibit P12 representation before the 2nd respondent and the same was forwarded by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent as per letter dated 6.2.2013. By Exhibit P15 order, the Additional Chief Secretary to Government informed the 2nd respondent as follows:

This order is under challenge in this writ petition.

3. A statement has been filed by the 2nd respondent contending that though Smt. K.Laila is junior to the petitioner, the anomaly in fixation of pay had occurred due to the option exercised by the petitioner, the Accountant General (A&E) informed the 2nd respondent by Exhibit P14 that the anomaly can be rectified as stipulated in Ruling No.1 under Rule 28 A, Part I, KSR. The 2nd respondent had therefore taken up the matter with the first respondent. It is stated that though Smt. K. Laila, who was junior to the petitioner, had been appointed as Private Secretary to Judge with effect from 6.2.2009, she had opted for option No.(b) under Rule 28 A, Part I, KSR. The 1st respondent had therefore held that since the anomaly in fixation of pay was on account of an option exercised by the petitioner, the same could not be treated a senior-junior anomaly which could be rectified under Rule 28 A, Part I, KSR. This fact had been informed to the petitioner also.

4. The 1st respondent has also filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is contended that the anomaly in fixation of pay is as a result of an option consciously exercised by the senior officer and the stepping up of pay as available under Ruling No.I will not be applicable. It is stated that the option excercised under Rule 28 A, Part I, KSR is final and no re-option is admissible. It is stated that the petitioner had opted for option No.(a) while his Junior had opted option No.(b). It is further stated that this anomaly has not occurred directly as a result of the application of the Rule 28 A, Part I, KSR and it cannot be rectified as per the conditions of Ruling No.I under Rule 28 A.

(d) The refixation of pay of the senior officer should be done with effect from the date of refixation of pay of the junior officer. The next increment of the senior officer will however be drawn on the date on which it would have fallen due but for this refixation of pay."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A No. 1580 of 2006. The Division Bench, considering the anomaly which occurred in the fixation of pay of a junior, who was working as Senior Accountant (Higher Grade), on account of a difference in option submitted pursuant to the pay revision effected in 1993, considered the specific contention raised by the respondents that the difference in pay had arisen as a result of a judicious exercise of option by the junior and in such circumstances, the senior, who had consciously exercised an option which resulted in his drawing a lower pay, cannot be permitted to seek the benefit of stepping up in terms of Ruling No.1 under Rule 28 A, Part I, KSR. The Division Bench held that the question to be decided in a request for stepping up of pay is whether by virtue of the provisions contained in Ruling No.1 under Rule 28 A, Part I, KSR, the senior is entitled to have his pay stepped up and equated his pay of his junior. Referring to conditions (a) to (d) specified in Ruling No.1, the Division Bench held that the conscious exercise of an option which resulted in the senior drawing a lower pay was not excluded from the ambit of the conditions in ruling 1. In the case decided in the said writ appeal also, where the anomaly was a result of the different dates opted by the senior and the junior, the Division Bench held that the anomaly was a result of fixation of pay of the junior applying Rule 28A of Part I KSR and that therefore the senior is entitled to have his pay stepped up.