Seniors are entitled to pay parity with juniors unless the junior's higher pay is due to advance increments or similar exceptions, which were not established in this case.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is preferred challenging Ext.P10 order dated 28.07.2017, whereby the petitioners were denied the benefit of stepping up of pay at par with juniors on the ground that the chain action of stepping up is not permissible under the provisions of Circular No.WR-09-2006-05 dated 01.05.2006.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1^st petitioner was initially appointed as Technical Assistant Grade III in the year 1976 and was subsequently promoted as Technical Assistant Grade I in the year 1982. His seniority as Assistant Grade I (Technical) was fixed as Sl. No.111, and that of the 2^nd petitioner as Sl. No.105, in the seniority list of Assistant Grade I (Technical), as on 30.06.1999. Both the petitioners retired from service on 30.04.2011 and 31.07.2012, respectively. The petitioners had already approached this Court on an earlier occasion, to point out certain anomalies, following a representation submitted to the official respondents, dated 30.07.2003. However, the same was not considered for a considerable period of time. In the meanwhile, certain juniors to the petitioners were granted the benefit of stepping up of pay, as is evident from Exts. P2 and P5.

3. In such circumstances, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.36173 of 2009. By judgment dated 01.12.2016, this Court disposed of the said writ petition in the light of the reported decisions in Gurcharan Singh Grewal and another v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others [ (2009) 3 SCC 94 ] and Kamala Devi v. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. [2002 (1) KLT 157] . In the light of the said judgments, the earlier rejection contained in Exts.P6 and P7 was considered by this Court and found to be unsustainable, particularly as those orders were non-speaking orders.

4. Under such circumstances, a direction was given to the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the claim made by the petitioners for stepping up of their pay at par with their juniors, in strict compliance with the principles laid down by the Government decisions under Rule 22 of the Fundamental Rules and the same shall be done only after affording an opportunity of being heard within the stipulated time. However, in compliance with the said order, Ext.P10 order was issued, whereby the request of petitioners for stepping up was rejected on the ground that it will result in chain action of stepping up.

5. According to the petitioners, this is against the principles laid down in the Fundamental Rules fixed for Government servants, especially as per Ext.R1(b), the Swamy’s Master Guide to FR & SR Service Rules and Financial Rules, answer (a)(iii) in Question No.12 reads as follows:-

“The anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of FR 22 (1) (a) (1). For example, if even in the lower post the junior Officer draws from time to time a higher rate of pay than the senior by virtue of grant of advance increments or drawal of increment in the lower post earlier than the senior, no stepping up of pay will be given to the senior Officer."

6. In support of the contention in Ext.P10, a counter affidavit was filed by the 1st respondent relying on the document produced as Ext.R1(c), whereby it is contended that the allegation regarding the pay of Sri K. Jayarami, who is far junior to the petitioners, was fixed one step above, in 1993 and two steps above since 30.12.1995. The 1^st petitioner, Sri P.V. Salgunan, has claimed a stepping up of pay on par with his junior, Sri K. Jayarami Reddy, at the AG.I (Tech) level, one step above since 07.11.1993 and two steps above since 30.12.1995. Such pay anomaly cases had been referred to the Ministry by the FCI Headquarters, New Delhi, with a re