Denial of pay fixation option to a senior employee in favor of a junior constitutes discrimination, violating principles of equality under Article 14.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J.

1. The petitioner challenges order dated 06.03.2019 passed in O.A. No.3074/2013 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal'), whereby his prayer for re-fixation of pay equal to that of his junior, sought on the ground that the petitioner herein was never offered the option of fixation of pay from the date of increment of pay scale of the previous post at the time of promotion to the rank of Head Constable (Exe.), was rejected and the Original Application dismissed.

2. The case of the petitioner as culled from the record is that the petitioner was appointed as Constable (Exe) in Delhi Police on 08.11.1976. Subsequently, one Sh. Prem Prakash had joined the Delhi Police as Constable (Exe) on 07.12.1976 and was junior to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he along with Sh. Prem Prakash was promoted as Head Constable on 12.06.1987.

3. Petitioner states that while he was drawing the pay scale of Head Constable, due to an option for fixation of pay, which was offered to Sh. Prem Prakash, said Sh. Prem Prakash subsequently, started drawing a higher pay while the petitioner was drawing a lower pay in comparison.

4. Petitioner claims that he came to know about this discrepancy in pay fixation on 18.07.2008. Petitioner submits that vide the inter departmental communication dated 18.07.2008, the respondent admitted that Sh. Prem Prakash, who, by then, became an ASI, was junior to the petitioner in the rank of Constable. However, the subsequent promotions of both were on the same dates.

5. It is submitted by the petitioner that the said letter further mentioned that the discrepancy/ anomaly in their pay arose on account of the fact that ASI Prem Prakash exercised his option for fixing his pay scale coinciding with the date on which the increment became due at the time of promotion to the rank of Head Constable (Exe.). Petitioner states that no such option was sought from him at the time of fixation of his pay when he was promoted to the rank of Head Constable (Exe).

6. It is this communication which gives rise to the grievance raised by the petitioner before the respondents as well as the Tribunal.

7. The controversy as noted by the Tribunal in para 6 giving rise to the grievance is as under:

"6. It was way back on 12.06.1997, that the applicant and Shri Prem Prakash were promoted to the post of Head Constable. Earlier to that, both of them had put in ten years of service, and they were drawing the same pay, all through. The pay of the applicant in the post of Head Constable was fixed at Rs. 1,075/-, on promotion. Shri Prem Prakash on the other hand, exercised the option that fixation of his pay in the post of Head Constable be done from the date on which he gets increment, i.e., from 01.12.1987. This resulted in a situation where the applicant started drawing the pay of Rs. 1,075/-, whereas Shri Prem Prakash was drawing lesser pay of Rs. 1,075/-. This continued up to December 1987, when they parted the ways, while the salary of the applicant was fixed at Rs.1,075/-, that of Shri Prem Prakash became Rs. 1,100/-. The salary of the applicant was enhanced to Rs. 1,100/- in June 1988, but the salary of Shri Prem Prakash was enhanced to Rs. 1,125/- from 01.12.1988 onwards. The same tendency continued for the rest of their career."

Subsequently, it appears that petitioner had ventilated his grievances in the years 2004, 2007 and 2008 in the form of Dak diaries, however, there was no response from the respondents.

8. Petitioner gave a representation to the Commissioner of Police on 31.01.2011 stating, inter alia, that at the time of his promotion to the post of Head Constable, he was not made aware of the option in the context of fixation of pay scale and on account of that, while he ended up with a pay at a lower level, his junior Sh. Prem Prakash was drawing a higher pay. Petitioner thus, made a request for remo