Judgment

G.T.NANAVATI, J.

(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) THE Employees State Insurance Corporation, represented by its Director General and Regional Director, is the appellant in all these appeals. Respondent 1, in each of these appeals, is the contesting respondent. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the contesting respondents who have appeared in person.

(3) THE appellant-corporation has a Regional Office at Bangalore and local offices at smaller places. One such local office is at Shahbad town. In the year 1982 the Corporation invited options from the Upper Division Clerks for being posted as the UDC In-charge at the local offices. The contesting respondents who were senior to Respondent 2 and working in the Regional Offices expressed their unwillingness for being posted as UDC In-charge at the local offices. Therefore, Respondent 2 came to be posted as UDC In-charge of the local office in Shahbad with effect from 21/9/1984 as no official senior to him was willing to be posted to that place. Respondent 2 worked as UDC In-charge from 21/9/1984 to 4/10/1985. He also worked as a Head Clerk at that place on an ad hoc basis from 5/10/1985 till his regular promotion as Head Clerk on 26-7-1989. On his promotion as Head Clerk his pay was fixed at Rs. 1680 with effect from 1/6/1989. The contesting respondents also came to be promoted as Head Clerks and their pay was fixed at Rs. 1,640.00. As they were senior to Respondent 2 and yet their pay was fixed at a lower rate they made representations under FR 22-C seeking parity of their pay with that of Respondent 2. As the representations were rejected they approached the central Administrative tribunal, Bangalore bench, for a direction to the Corporation to step up their pay so as to bring it on a par with that of Respondent 2.

(4) THE tribunal felt that "some injustice has been done to the applicant by not giving him an opportunity to opt in the matter of transfer that led to an appreciation in the career prospects of his junior who in all probability made his choice and profited thereby". The tribunal was also of the view that the stand taken by the Corporation would have been justified had they given an option again in the year 1985 when Respondent 2 was made Head Clerk though on a temporary and ad hoc basis. Taking this view the tribunal directed the Corporation to step up the pay of the contesting respondents under PR 22-C; but as regards the arrears of pay the benefit directed to be given was restricted to one year prior to the date of applications made to the tribunal. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the Corporation is that FR 22-C had no application in these cases and, therefore, the tribunal was wrong in directing the Corporation to step up the pay of the contesting respondents under that rule.

(5) IT is not in dispute that the contesting respondents had expressed their unwillingness to be posted as UDC In-charge of local offices. Probably they declined because those places were small and they would have lost the benefit of HRA and CCA. Unlike Respondent 2 they refused to avail of the benefit of being UDC In-charge and preferred to remain in the Regional Office and continue to have the benefit of HRA and CCA. It is also not in dispute that posting as UDC In-charge is not a promotion from the cadre of UDC to a higher cadre. Such postings were made on a temporary and ad hoc basis. Again, when Respondent 2 was posted as Head Clerk at the local office in Shahbad that was also on a temporary and ad hoc basis and by way of local arrangement. When the regular promotions from the cadre of UDC to the cadre of Head Clerk came to be made in 1989 pay of Respondent 2 came to be fixed at Rs. 1,680.00, at a higher rate in terms of FR 22-C. The contesting respondents were not entitled to such a benefit and, therefore, their pay was fixed at Rs. 1,640.00. The contesting respondents had no grievance to make when Respond