JUDGMENT :

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 14.06.2019, passed in W.P.(MD) No.2437 of 2012, on the file of this Court.)

1. This Writ Appeal filed by the Writ Petitioner is directed against the order dated 14.06.2019, in W.P.(MD) No.2437 of 2012.

2. The appellant filed the said Writ Petition, challenging the correctness of the order passed by the first respondent, by which, the appellant's representation for stepping up of his pay on the ground that his junior was drawing more pay was rejected.

3. We have heard Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Standing Counsel for Government, appearing for the respondents.

4. The appellant joined the service of the respondent department as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon on 18.08.1968 and awarded Selection Grade in the said post with effect from 01.10.1978 and subsequently, awarded Special Grade on 07.11.1989 and promoted as Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry on 05.05.1993 and subsequently, as Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry on 24.04.2000 and retired from service on attaining age of superannuation on 30.06.2000.

5. The appellant's claims that his pay has to be fixed from 12.01.1996 at Rs.11,625/- in the post of Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry on par with his junior Dr.V.Veereswaraiah, who joined the service on 17.01.1969 as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and was awarded Selection Grade and subsequently Special Grade on 27.06.1989 and promoted as Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry on 12.01.1996 and then promoted as Joint Director of Animal Husbandry and subsequently as Joint Director of Animal Husbandry and retired on attaining the age of superannuation.

6. The appellant further claims that the said incumbent has joined services on 17.01.1969 and was a junior to the appellant till his date of retirement and therefore, in terms of Ruling (2) under FR 22(B), if a junior was drawing higher pay, then the pay of the senior should be stepped up. Accordingly, a representation was made and initially the first respondent recommended the claim of pay anomaly to the second respondent on the ground that both senior and junior must have been promoted from the same feeder category and the Scale of Pay of the senior and junior both in the prerevised and revised rates must be equal and the reason for the anomaly should be on the basis of implementation of revised Scale of Pay. The second respondent, namely, the Government by order dated 01.10.2004 rejected the claim observing that the senior was drawing lesser rate of pay than his junior from time to time in the lower post of Special Grade Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. Therefore, the conditions stipulated in Ruling (2) under FR 22(B) are not satisfied in the case and there is no justification for re-fixation of pay of the petitioner on par with his junior.

7. It is also the case of the appellant that the said incumbent joined service in 1969, whereas he joined the service in 1968 and the said incumbent was working in the feeder category, namely, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, to the post Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry, in which post the appellant was working at the relevant point of time. Further, it is submitted that the anomaly has occurred on account of sanction of one increment of Rs. 325/- to the said incumbent as he had passed Account Test on 26.06.1989, whereas the appellant passed the account test on 06.11.1989 and the salary was revised in the case of the said incumbent with effect from 27.06.1989, whereas the same was done to the appellant only with effect from 07.11.1989. Therefore, the appellant would contend that during 1989, both the appellant and the said incumbent were drawing the same Scale of Pay and therefore, subsequently, the said incumbent cannot draw higher salary without admitting that he was the appellant's junior.

8. The learned Single Bench observed that the claim made by the appellant after lapse