JUDGEMENT (ORAL):

PER, SUJOY PAUL, CJ.:-

1. This petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution assails the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. No. 392 of 2007 dated 27.11.2012, whereby the tribunal rejected the prayer of the petitioner for giving him pay protection at par in comparison with his junior, who was already getting higher pay in the same scale or pay.

2. The case of petitioner in nutshell, is that from the date of initial appointment till occupying the post of Field Officer on which petitioner and private respondents were appointed through direct recruitment, petitioner was all along senior to the private respondent. The respondent, for no valid reason on the direct recruitment post of Field Officer fixed the pay of private respondent more than the petitioner and declined the prayer of petitioner for stepping up of pay. The petitioner has meticulously prepared a comparative chart, which contains the relevant dates of holding different posts by petitioner & pvt. respondent, the pay scale and qualifications that were necessary to decide this matter. The said chart will indicate in juxtaposition, the journey of the petitioner and the pri