WP(C) 7493/2002 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. A.K. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner as wel l as Mr. P.K. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, FCI. The matter relates to stepping up of pay at par with juniors. Th e grievance of the petitioner is that his pay has not been stepped up at par wit h juniors in terms of the Annexure-1 circular dated 1.5.1995. By Annexure- 2 and 3 representations dated 15.3.1999 and 20.7.1999, the petitioner prayed for step ping up of his pay at par with his junior/colleague one Sri Kunja Lal Talukdar. The representations so made by the petitioner was forwarded to the authority by the District Manager under whom the petitioner had been serving. Same was done b y Annexure-4 letter dated 24.7.1999, by which the History Card and Leave A/Cs of the petitioner were also forwarded. Even thereafter also the petitioner made fu rther representation and his controlling officer forwarded the same to the autho rity. However, when nothing was done, the petitioner preferred the instant writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, only stand tak en is that the Annexure-1 circular dated 1.5.1995 was circulated to all the Dist rict Offices inviting exercise of option for stepping up of pay in terms of the said circular. However, the petitioner did not exercise his option and consequen tly could not be given the benefit of said circular. According to the respondent s, the petitioner has been provided with the benefits of stepping up of pay in a nother form in terms of another circular issued in 1998. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, the stand of the respondents has been denied. It has been stated that the circular was never bro ught to the notice of the petitioner. In this connection the petitioner has also referred to the particular letter of his controlling officer i.e. the responden t No. 6, in which it was stated that the District Office at Nagaon did not recei ve the said circular letter. The respondents have filed another affidavit on 4.10.2007 to con tend that the circular was circulated to all the District Offices including the office of the Employees Union and thus it is unbelievable that the petitioner wa s not aware of the said circular. The petitioner has also filed an additional af fidavit against the said affidavit once again reiterating the stand in the writ petition. In this affidavit also he has referred to the communication made by th e respondent No. 6 i.e. his controlling officer to the higher authority that the circular could not be furnished to the petitioner as the same was not received in the District Office at Nagaon and consequently, the petitioner also could not exercise his option. As regards the example cited by the respondent that one of the employees, who was allegedly working in the said office in which the petiti oner had been working had exercised the option, the petitioner has stated that a t the relevant time, the said employee was working in the District Office at Guw ahati and not at Nagaon. In the affidavit filed on 16.12.2009, the petitioner has referre d to the parawise comments furnished to the writ petition by the respondent No. 6. The said comment has been obtained through an application filed under RTI Act . In paragraph 3 of the said parawise comments, it has been specifically stated that the aforesaid circular of 1995 was not received by the District Office at N agaon as revealed from the official records i.e. Receipt and Despatch Register. The said comments further states that consequently the Circular No. 5 of 1995 co uld not be furnished to the petitioner, who at the relevant point of time was wo rking at FCI, FSD/Hojai under District Office, Nagaon. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the aforesaid revelation made by the respondent No. 6 has not been stated even obliquely. The y have all along tried to project that since the circular was circulated, same m ust have come to the knowledge of the petitioner. Mere issuance of the circular without making it known to the con cerned employee is not sufficient to show that the circular has been circulated amongst the employees. In the instant case, the specific plea of the petitioner is that the circular did not receive the Nagaon Office, a fact which has been co ntended by none other than the respondent No. 6, who is the controlling officer of the petitioner. In the parawise comments furnished by the respondent No. 6, i t was categorically stated that the Receipt and Despatch Register did not indica te receipt of the said circular of 1995. The respondents being a modal employer ought to have disclosed that aspect of the matter instead of contesting the writ petition by raising false claim that the circular was circulated to all the emp loyees. The particular circular was issued on 1.5.1995. Had it been know n to the petitioner, he would have mentioned it in his representation dated 15.3 .1999, which was followed by subsequent representation. When the said representa tion dated 15.3.1999 was submitted by the petitioner, the respondents ought to h ave considered the same in the light of the said circular dated 1.5.1995, but in stead kept the matter pending and have resisted the writ petition on untenable p leas. This Court by order dated 26.3.2008 recording the submissions ma de by Mr. P.K. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, FCI that a Pay Anomaly Committee h as been constituted to consider the question of stepping up of pay issued direct ion to the Pay Anomaly Committee to look into the grievance of the petitioner. P ursuant to the said order, the petitioner made further representation and as sub mitted by Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, the grievance of the p etitioner has not yet been redressed. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The responde nts shall consider the case of the petitioner for stepping up of pay in terms of Annexure-1 circular dated 1.5.1995, for which the petitioner has already exerci sed his option in terms of the aforesaid order passed by this Court on 26.3.2008 . Necessary formalities regarding stepping up of pay of the petiti oner in terms of the circular dated 1.5.1995 shall be carried out as expeditious ly as possible, but at any rate, not later than 31.12.2010. The writ petition is allowed, without, however, any order as to costs.