ORDER

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

2. The admitted position is that the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, Gurnam Singh and Parminder Singh, were appointed on September 19, 1975 and September 25, 1975 respectively as Assistants on regular basis and ever since they have been continuously officiating as Assistants. The appellant while working as a Senior Stenographer had come to the administrative side as Assistant w.e.f. April 29, 1977 and joined the duty on the said date. In the matter of fixation of inter se seniority, since he has been drawing higher pay than the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 he claims that he is senior to them. The High Court in the impugned judgment dated 9.12.1993 in W.P. Nos. 3938 of 9791 of 1993 has upheld the claim of the respondents. Thus, these appeals.

3. Shri Ashok Grover, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that Rule 3(1) and Rule 3(2) are to be read together; if they are so read, a stenographer drawing higher scale of pay than the respondent should be treated as senior to them. Though prima facie the argument is plausible, on a careful reading of the said Rules his contention does not appear to be tenable. Rule 3 reads as under :

"3