Point of Law : Reasoning of the High Court was erroneous and the appellant No.1 was also entitled to the same benefits of pay parity with Shri Shori as has been granted to the appellant No.2

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing communications/ orders dated 18.02.2020” (Annexure P-7), 08.03.2021 (Annexure P-10) and 27.12.2021 (Annexure P-15) issued by respondent No.2.

ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to pay the difference of the salary being drawn by Shri Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2016 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date the same fell due till its realization.

iii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Senior Lecturer (mechanical Engineering) w.e.f. 26.03.2015, when Shri Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj was promoted.”

2. The facts of the case are not disputed. Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (Mechanical Engineering) in the Department of Technical Education and he had joined at Government Polytechnic, Sundernagar on 9.2.2000. One Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj was also appointed in the same cadre and had joined on 10.2.2000 at Government Polytechnic, Hamirpur. Petitioner was rightly placed above said Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj in the seniority list of the Lecturer (Mechanical Engineering). Petitioner was promoted as Head of Department (Mechanical Engineering) on 26.3.2015 in the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100 + Grade Pay of Rs. 7800/-. On the same day i.e. 26.3.2015, Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj was also promoted as Senior Lecturer (Mechanical Engineering) in the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100 + Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/-. Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj was further promoted as Head of Department (Mechanical Engineering) in the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100 + Grade Pay of Rs. 7800/- on 3.2.2016. Having been promoted from the post of Senior Lecturer (Mechanical Engineering), the salary of said Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj came to be fixed at rate higher than the salary of petitioner w.e.f. 1.4.2016.

3. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner was that his junior was getting higher salary than him and the petitioner represented to the respondents. His representation was rejected firstly on 18.2.2020 vide Annexure P-7. Petitioner again represented but his representation met with the same fate vide rejection order Annexure P-10 dated 8.3.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner made yet another representation by quoting the Office Memo dated 26.10.2018, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions Department but he again remained unsuccessful and rejection letter was issued on 4.2.2022 vide Annexure P-15.

4. Having remained unsuccessful in his attempts to get his grievance redressed from respondents, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition. The case of petitioner is that an anomaly has been created by grant of higher pay to a junior, whereas the senior on the same post in the same cadre is being paid less salary. Petitioner has claimed his right on the basis of FR-22 I (a) (1) and Office Memoranda regarding removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay of senior on promotion drawing less pay than his junior issued by Government of India from time to time.

5. Respondents have contested the plea of petitioner on the ground that he was not entitled to the benefit of FR 22 1 (a) (1) and Office memorandum, issued in respect of removal of anomaly by stepping up the pay of senior on promotion drawing less pay than his junior. As per respondents, petitioner was directly promoted as Head of Department from lower post of Lecturer, whereas Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj was promoted in the first step as Senior Lecturer and in the second step as Head of Department. In such situation, Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj got the benefit of FR 22 twice and as such, his pay was fixed at higher scale than the petitioner. According to the respondents, there is no anomaly and hence, the petitioner was not entitled for