JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Mehta, J.

1. The petitioner is working on the post of Private Secretary-cum-Judgment Writer in the establishment of the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to assail the action of the respondents in denying him one annual grade increment and the order dated 11.06.2020 (Annexure-16) whereby, the representation dated 04.12.2018 (Annexure-15) filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid denial was rejected and to direct that the anomaly existing in the pay of the petitioner vis-a-vis with that of another Private Secretary-cum-Judgment Writer namely Ms. Tak, at par with the petitioner, be removed.

2. Shri Vikas Balia, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Hemant Ballani urged that the action of the respondents in denying same basic pay to the petitioner as another Private Secretary who is equal in rank and seniority to the petitioner and at par is absolutely unjustified, arbitrary and amounts to hostile discrimination. He urged that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 04.12.2018 (Annexure-15) to the respondent authorities for removal of this pay anomaly and in response thereto, the order dated 11.06.2020 (Annexure-16) was received wherein, it was mentioned that this pay anomaly was on account of adverse remark in the APAR. However, in reply to the writ petition, the respondents have changed their stance and have claimed that the Private Secretary Ms. Tak with whom the petitioner claims parity was, as a matter of fact, promoted to the post of Senior Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer much before the petitioner, who was promoted later, on account of pendency of an inquiry against him. It was also averred in the reply that Ms. Tak was conferred an annual grade increment on the promotional post much prior to the petitioner and hence, the anomaly which has arisen in the pay scales is logical and explainable. It was contended that contradictory stands in the order dated 11.06.2020 vis-a-vis the reply fortifies the case of the petitioner that the impugned action is arbitrary and illegal. Shri Balia urged that the promotion which was granted to Ms. Tak in the year 2013 was purely ad hoc in nature. The petitioner as well as Ms. Tak were both regularly promoted to the post of Senior Personal Assistant vide order dated 08.09.2015 and thus, there cannot be any justification for difference in pay scale of the petitioner and Ms. Tak. He placed reliance on the following Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment:-

1. Union of India & Ors. v. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors., reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010.

2. Gurpal Singh v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, reported in (2012) 13 SCC 94 (sic) & implored the Court to accept the writ petition and direct the respondents to remove the unjust and arbitrary anomaly in the petitioner's pay-scale with all consequential monetary benefits.

3. Shri Chayan Bothra, Assistant to Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned Senior Advocate, appeared for the respondents and supported the impugned action. Regarding the inconsistency pointed out in the order (Annexure-16) conveyed to the petitioner while rejecting his representation (Annexure-15) and the pleadings in the reply, Shri Bothra submitted that it was inadvertently conveyed in the order dated 11.06.2020 that the pay-scale anomaly of the petitioner was on account of adverse remark in the APAR. However, while filing reply to the writ petition, the record was examined thoroughly and it came to light that Ms. Tak was granted ad hoc promotion as Senior PA-cum-Judgment Writer on 20.12.2013 whereas the petitioner was facing an inquiry and thus, he was not promoted at the same point of time. Ms. Tak was granted an annual grade increment during the period of her assignment as Senior PA-cum-Judgment Writer on ad hoc basis for a period of two years. However, the petitioner was not entitled to such promotion and the annual grade increment because of a pending disciplinary inquiry. The petitioner as well as Ms. Tak were gra