JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner has challenged Government Order No.2327-LD(A) of 2016 dated 22.08.2016, whereby his claim for stepping up of his pay at par with his junior counterpart has been rejected.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the instant writ petition are that petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant in the Courts subordinate to the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir on 08.06.1979 and was later on confirmed in the said post in terms of order No.882 dated 13.12.1986. In terms of order No.207 dated 27.07.1996, petitioner along with others was granted insitu promotion as per the J&K Civil Services (Higher Standard Pay Scale Scheme) Rules, 1996 placing him in the 1st Higher Standard Pay Scale w.e.f. 01.01.1995. Petitioner was granted functional promotion to the post of Senior Assistant in the pay scale of 1200-2040 in terms of order No.349 dated 15.10.1996 and was later promoted to the post of Head Assistant, on which post he superannuated on 31.12.2010.

3. Case of the petitioner is that one Mohammad Ramzan Dar, who figured junior to him in the seniority list of Junior Assistants, was, at the time of fixing his pay in the higher post of Senior Assistant, granted higher pay scale of Rs.1400-2300/ as against the pay scale of petitioner which was fixed at Rs.1200-2040. According to the petitioner, as per SRO 225 of 1997, his pay scale was eligible to be stepped up so as to bring it at par with the pay scale of his junior, namely, Mohammad Ramzan Dar. It is further submitted that in the case of another employee, namely, Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat, who is also figuring junior to the petitioner but senior to aforenamed Mohammad Ramzan Dar in the seniority list of Junior Assistants, the benefit of stepping up of pay has been accorded to him by respondents No.1, 3 and 4 by applying the provisions of SRO 225 of 1997 whereas similar treatment has been denied to the petitioner.

4. It appears that the petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing SWP No.2153/2013 which was disposed of by this Court in terms of order dated 05.08.2014, whereby respondents were directed to accord consideration to the grant of Administrative Approval for upgradation of salary of the petitioner on the strength of SRO 225 of 1997. It also appears that in pursuance of order dated 05.08.2014 passed in SWP No.2153/2013, respondent No.1 has accorded consideration to the claim of the petitioner and rejected the same as being not covered under rules.

5. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of rejection of his claim on the grounds that he has been invidiously discriminated, inasmuch as similar cases of Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat, Mushtaq Ahmad Shah, Bashir Ahmad Khan and Mohammad Akbar Mir have been favourably determined by respondent No.1. it is further urged that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 smacks of non-application of mind, inasmuch as the said respondent, while applying Instruction No.8 appended to Article 77-B of J&K Civil Service Regulations (for Short J&K CSR), has ignored the fact that petitioner and Mohammad Ramzan Dar belonged to the identical cadre/service. Lastly, it has been contended that interpretation made by respondent No.1 to the relevant rules in the case of petitioner is absolutely erroneous.

6. The writ petition has been resisted by respondents No.1 and 3 by filing a reply thereto. In their reply, respondents No.1 and 3 have submitted that upon examination of the matter in its entirety, it was seen that anomaly in the pay of petitioner did not take place directly as a result of application of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Higher Standard Pay Scale Scheme) Rules, 1996 [for short “the Rules of 1996”] but because the pay of Shri Mohammad Ramzan Dar had been fixed at a higher stage by virtue of his length of service which he had rendered in another cadre. It has been contended that Note to Rule 6 of the Rules of 1996 provides for dealing of cases of pay anomaly in accordance with Instructions below Article 77-B of J&K CS