The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of longer actual length of service as a valid ground for drawing more pay, the limitations of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1976, and the need to establish entitlement before claiming parity with others.

Prem Shanker Asopa, J.-This special appeal is directed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 012.1991, passed in the aforesaid writ petition whereby the writ petition has been accepted and the respondent-appellant has been directed to step-up the pay of the respondent Nav Ratan Mal Nagori, U.D.C equivalent to Junior U.D.Cs Amar Singh Rathore and Bhanwar Lal on the ground of equality with a further direction that the petitioner will be entitled to all other benefits equivalent to Amar Singh and Bhanwar Lal.

2. The Board of Secondary Education-appellant challenged the said Judgment on the ground that the respondent-petitioner Navratan Mal was not entitled for the benefit granted by learned Single Judge, who has committed a serious error of law in simply granting the same benefit to him on the ground of violation of equality clause or the Principle of equal pay for equal work without considering the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised) New Pay Scales Rules, 1976 (for short the Rules of 1976), which have been adopted by the appellant-Board.

3. Briefly stated the other relevant facts which are available on the record are that the respondent petitioner was appointed as U.D.C. through direct recruitment in the year 1968 and was promoted as Senior Assistant on 24.02.1983. Thereafter his pay was fixed in the grade of Section Officer. However, he was designated as Senior Assistant from 06.09.1986.

4. That Board filed reply to the writ and submitted therein that Amar Singh and Bhanwar Lal joined the service of the Board way back in the year 1962 and were promoted to the post of U.D.C. after the promotion of the petitioner. As per the agreement with the Employees Union it was decided to give benefit of the increments after 8 years, 16 years and 24 years. The junior persons having more length of service, therefore, have been granted the benefit of the increments and on account of the said benefit of the increment their pay was fixed more than the pay of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has no ground to claim parity with the junior persons who are having more length of service and were granted the benefit of the increment as per the said agreement.

5. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge has committed serious error of law in not examining the Rule 11 of the said rules of 1976, more particularly the relevant Rules 11(2) (a) and (b) read with Rule 12 and the agreement whereby the scheme of grant of increments after 8, 16 and 24 years was introduced. Since, the juniors were having more than 16 years service on the date of the applicability of the said rules of 1976 i.e., 01.09.1976 therefore, they were granted increments, otherwise also their pay was required to be fixed as U.D.C corresponding to the pay drawn by them as L.D.C. After granting them the benefit of one lower and one higher increment on the date of promotion. In support of the aforesaid contention the learned Counsel for the Board has placed reliance upon a Judgment reported in Government of A.P. & Ors. vs. V. Veera Raghavan 1999

(9) Supreme Court Cases 266.

6. The submission of the Counsel for the respondent-petitioner is that the Board in identical situation has granted the stepping of pay to 5 persons and 27 persons subsequently but no such benefit was granted to him, therefore, parity in not stepping-up the pay equivalent to the junior is arbitrary, unreasonable and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 39 (d) of the Constitution of India.

7. The learned Counsel for the respondent-petitioner has again stressed on the argument that two junior persons namely Amar Singh and Bhanwarlal are getting higher pay than him, therefore, he is also entitled for the stepping-up of the pay on the basis of equality but has not been able to satisfy from the rules which make him entitled.

Rule 11(2)(a) & (b) of the Rules of 1976 are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-

“(2) (a) where as a result of fixatio