{ 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.178/2000 AVINASH KANT GAUR VS. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL & ORS. Date of Judgment : 23.11.2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.M. TOTLA Mr. A.K. Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr. Kamal Dave, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE A.M. SAPRE, J) This is a writ petition filed by the applicant of O.A. 355 of 97 under article 227 of Constitution of India against an order dt. 9.9.1999 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (for short hereinafter called “Tribunal”) in aforementioned original application. 2. By impugned order, Tribunal dismissed the original application of the writ petitioner and declined to grant him the relief claimed by him in his application. 3. So the question arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the original application of the writ petitioner. { 2 } 4. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass as would be clear from mere reading of the impugned order. They, however, need mention in brief infra. 5. The writ petitioner (applicant before Tribunal) is a Railway employee. He filed one representation to the departmental authorities for grant of certain benefits in stepping of his pay scale. He claimed this benefit on the ground that similar benefits were granted to respondents nos. 6 and 7 and since they were junior to him and hence he too is entitled to claim the same. This benefit was accordingly granted to him by order dt. 12.6.97. However, within two months of the said grant, it was realized by the Railway authorities that it was wrongly granted and hence by order dt. 6.8.97, the benefit, which was granted to the writ petitioner, was withdrawn. It is against this order i.e. order dt. 6.8.97 withdrawing the benefit, the writ petitioner felt aggrieved and filed an application before the Tribunal out of which this writ petition arises. 6. By impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the application and held that benefit granted to the writ petitioner was not proper and hence it was rightly withdrawn. The Tribunal, therefore, upheld the order of withdrawal of the benefits. It is against this order of the Tribunal; the applicant (employee) felt aggrieved and filed this writ petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the writ petition and in consequence, uphold the { 3 } impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 8. In our opinion, when it was not disputed that writ petitioner was junior to respondent nos. 6 and 7 in the service, then in such circumstances, the writ petitioner could not have claimed the benefit on the ground of he being senior to respondent nos. 6 and 7. In other words, when it was not disputed that initial entry of the writ petitioner in the service was in the year 1987 as against that of respondent nos. 6 and 7 who entered in service in the year 1984, then in such event, writ petitioner was not entitled to claim any benefit at least on the ground of he being senior. It is this factor, which had to be taken into account while examining the case of parties and was so taken into account. 9. We are not impressed by the submission of the learned counsel for writ petitioner when he by placing reliance on one seniority list contended that he was senior to the respondent nos. 6 and 7. This submission is based on misconception. This seniority list is not based on the basis of initial entry of employees in the service but it is based on one departmental circular issued for preparation of seniority of those employees who are transferred from one department to other. It cannot be thus made basis for deciding the present dispute. 10. In our opinion, therefore, writ petitioner had no case to claim the parity with that of respondent nos. 6 and 7 for claiming the benefit of stepping up of his pay on the ground of he being senior qua respondent nos. 6 and 7. The { 4 } Tribunal, therefore, did not commit any mistake in not granting the relief claimed by the writ petitioner and was justified in upholding the order dt. 6.8.97 withdrawing the benefit wrongly granted to the writ petitioner. The employee is not entitled to claim the benefit on the basis of anything wrong or mistake committed by the employer. It is only when he is able to show that he has some legal right and the same is denied to him, the same can be granted to him by proving his legal right else not. In this case, we have not been able to notice such legal right. 11. In view of forgoing discussion, we find no merit in this writ petition and hence it is dismissed. No cost. ( C.M. TOTLA),J. ( A. M. SAPRE ),J. /Anil/