Civil Writ Petition No.1546 of 2004 :1: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1546 of 2004 Date of decision: 20.05.2011 S.K. Latawa .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present:- Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab. ---- Permod Kohli, J.(Oral) The petitioner after passing State Accounts Service Examination (SAS) joined the services in the State of Punjab as Senior Auditor/Section Officer on 21.02.1975. He was promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer (now designated as Assistant Controller, Finance & Accounts) and Deputy Controller (Finance & Accounts) and Joint Controller (Finance and Accounts) from time to time and retired from service on 30.11.2003. One Mr. P.C. Kansal, who joined the service as Section Officer was promoted in the rank of Assistant Controller (Finance and Accounts). In the Seniority List circulated vide office order dated 22.10.1993, the petitioner was shown at Serial No.8 whereas Mr.P.C. Kansal was shown at Serial No.39. The pay scales of employees working in the State of Punjab were revised w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Petitioner and private respondent both were holding the Civil Writ Petition No.1546 of 2004 :2: posts of Deputy Controller at the relevant time and their pay was fixed on 01.01.1996 at Rs.10980/- in the pay scale of Rs.7220- 11660. The pay of Mr. P.C. Kansal was fixed at Rs.11320/- in pay scale of Rs.7880-11660/- w.e.f. 06.06.1996. Pay of Mr. P.C. Kansal was further fixed at Rs.12000 on 01.11.1996 and at Rs.12375 on 01.11.1997. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he exercised the option in terms of the proviso to Rule 5 of Punjab Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules 1998 to switch over to the revised pay scale w.e.f 01.02.1996. Accordingly, the pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.11320/- w.e.f. 01.02.1996 and at Rs.11660 w.e.f. 01.02.1997 and Rs.12000 w.e.f. 01.02.1998. The grievance of the petitioner is that Mr. P.C. Kansal, who is junior to him, was placed in the higher pay scale than the petitioner who is admittedly senior to him. The petitioner, accordingly, claims pay parity with Mr.P.C. Kansal, his junior. The claim of the petitioner is denied by the respondents on the basis of the Government instructions dated 21.06.2000. From the perusal of the said Government instructions (P-3), it appears that the pay of the senior is to be stepped-up at par with his junior belonging to same post in which they have been promoted. A further condition is imposed in these instructions that in the pre-revised and revised scales of the lower and higher posts to which they belong, should be identified. However, clause a(iii) deals with the case where the senior Government employee exercises the option either for postponement to get his pay fixed or promotion postponed or opts for revised pay scale or shifting the date for payment of revised pay scale to a date other than the normal appointed date. The revised condition is Civil Writ Petition No.1546 of 2004 :3: reproduced as under :- a (iii) The senior government employees at the time of his promotion to the higher level had been drawing equal or more pay than the junior. But no relief will be given if the senior employees exercises an option to get his pay fixation/promotion postponed or opts for revised scale from a day other than the normal appointed day. It is admitted case of the petitioner that he has exercised the option for revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.02.1996 i.e. later than his junior, Mr. P.C. Kansal. It is upon the exercise of option by the petitioner that the pay of the junior became higher than the petitioner. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has exercised the option in accordance with Rule 5 and thus, he can not be put to disadvantageous position. This contention is totally irrelevant and fallacious. The petitioner chose the better option and it is incidental that the junior employee who was granted benefit of the revised pay scale on the notified date became entitled to the higher pay scale. In the above said circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim pay parity with his junior. No merits, petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 20.05.2011 sonika-II