CW 2408/99 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2408/99 Gopi Vallabh Sharma Versus Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 31/03/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Babu Lal Gupta, for petitioner Dr. P.C. Jain, for respondents *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner with the grievance that despite he being senior to persons named in Para 3 of writ petition in the cadre of Helper Gr.II, he is getting lesser pay in comparison to them and despite his grievance was considered by the Settlement Committee, but finally the relief was declined to him on the premise that there is no provision under the rules by which his pay could be revised in comparison to those who were junior to him. Petitioner was initially appointed on the basis of muster roll as Helper Gr.II on 17th April, 1978 in the erstwhile Board and was fixed in regular pay scale of Helper Gr.II w.e.f. 1st April, 1981 and those who were junior to him, namely; Narain Das, Shambhoo S/o Ladu, Bashir and Khushal Mani who were appointed on muster roll basis on 19th July, 1978 and 1st April, 1978 - they were also fixed in regular pay scale of Helper Gr.II w.e.f. 1st April, 1981 and one Bashir who was appointed on 15th April, 1978 he too was fixed in regular pay scale of Helper Gr.II from 1st April, 1981 were getting higher pay in comparison to petitioner. It appears from the CW 2408/99 [2] record that the Settlement Committee vide Ann.11 dated 18th March, 1999 has admitted this fact and recorded finding that petitioner was senior to persons named by him in the workcharge cadre and so also at the time of fixation in the cadre of Helper Gr.II, but since there is no provision under the rules to meet out such anomalies, relief cannot be granted to him. Counsel for petitioner submits that persons who were junior to him in the cadre, are getting higher pay and in the absence of any justification atleast he is entitled for the same pay scale to which his juniors were getting in the cadre. Denial of the same to him is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and objections have been raised with respect to filing of instant petition assailing order of the Settlement Committee without questioning the scheme of rules. But so far as factual matrix of the matter is concerned, the persons who were junior to petitioner in the cadre of Helper Gr.II being named by him specifically in Para 3 of the petition the same has not been controverted and this fact also remained uncontroverted that despite being junior to petitioner, they are getting higher pay in comparison to him. I have heard counsel for parties and with their assistance examined the material on record. Once this fact remain uncontroverted that petitioner is senior and persons who are named in CW 2408/99 [3] Para 3 of petition joined service on muster roll prior to them and also got his fixation from a common date in the cadre of Helper Gr.II w.e.f. 1st April, 1981. In the normal course, persons junior to him could not have been fixed in the higher pay scale in comparison to him, no reasonable justification thus has come forward from the side of respondents as to for what good reasons they have been assigned and fixed in higher pay scale in comparison to petitioner. However, he is senior and joined service much before their entry in service on muster roll basis and got his fixation as Helper Gr.II from the same date i.e. 1st April, 1981 certainly, in opinion of this court, even if rules became silent in this regard being similarly situated he is entitled for the same emoluments as being granted to those who are junior to him in the cadre of Helper Gr.II. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Respondents are directed to make fixation of petitioner in the same pay scale which was admissible to those who were junior to him of which reference has been made in Para 3 of the petition and after due fixation, arrears be computed and the same be paid to him within three months. No order as to costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA2408CW1999 31-3.doc