JUDGMENT :

1. This petition under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India is filed with following prayer(s):-

6 (A) quash and set aside the decision dated 4.4.2015, Annexure-A to the petition and direct the respondent authorities to grant second higher grade scale of Rs. 8,000-14,050 to the petitioner from his due date with all consequential benefits including arrears and consequential pay and pension fixation and (AA) quash and set aside the order dated 14.03.2016, Annexure-AA to the petition, and (B) further be pleased to direct the respondent Board to pay interest on the delayed payment on amount flowing from prayer clause, at the rate which the Hon’ble Court may consider, as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, and (C) award the cost of this petition, and…”

2. It is the case where petitioner is claiming a 2nd higher grade scale on the principle of having worked for 9 years in one scale, and therefore, challenging the decision dated 04.04.2015 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Such decision being taken against the order of this court too.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that upon completion of another fifteen years of service after receiving first higher grade scale, an employee is entitled to receive second higher grade scale as per the policy of the State Government, as envisaged in Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, as modified vide Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007.

4. It is submitted that since the petitioner had also rendered another 15 years of service after receipt of first higher grade scale, he became entitled for benefit of second higher grade scale, which would be of the cadre of Accounts Officer, Class-I, however, the authorities had not initiated any action for grant of second higher grade scale.

4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that considering the case of the petitioner, on 12.03.2010, proposal was sent from the Office of the Director of Accounts and Treasuries to the Finance Department for grant of second higher grade scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 17.02.2002 in view of completion of another 15 years of service after receipt of first higher grade scale.

4.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, as there was no response to the proposal sent by the Respondent No. 2, the petitioner had personally approached the authorities of the State Government time and again and had also made representation in that regard.

4.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner received one communication dated 02.06.2014 from the Finance Department, whereby it was intimated to the petitioner that cases prior to resolution dated 02.07.2007 are to be decided pursuant to Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 and as provided in para 3(2) of said resolution, person should not have been promoted more than two times, and therefore, the case of the petitioner is under consideration of the State Government, as the petitioner got three promotion and one higher grade scale.

4.4 Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that from the orders given to the petitioner under RTI, it clearly appears that on 16.03.2009, proposal for grant of second higher grade scale to one Shri I.H.Bandhara was sent to the Finance Department with checklist. On 05.06.2009, Respondent No.1 passed an order granting second higher grade scale of Rs.8000-14050 to few persons including persons junior to the petitioner, who had also received three promotion and one higher grade scale.

4.5 Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that there are many other persons junior to the petitioner are granted second higher grade scale, but since petitioner does not have service details of all as same is not being provided by the authorities even under the Right to Information Act, same is not provided here. But from the proposal forwarded by Respondent No.2 in case of Shri Bandhara, it can be seen that he was appointed after petitioner in the year 1972 and he was promoted thrice and