IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 41 OF 2003 (S/S) Jagdish Chandra Pant …………………….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal and others. ………….Respondents. Ms. Menka Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 to. 4. None appears for the respondent no.5. 25th July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.9.2002 passed by the respondent no. 2 and the order dated 23.9.2002 passed by the respondent no. 4, whereby the petitioner’s representation dated 31.5.2002 has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a Primary School vide order dated 14.8.1964, thereafter, on 15.11.1988, he was promoted from Primary School (Navin Vidyalay, Katoratal) to Junior High School (Navin Vidyalaya, Katoratal) on the post of Assistant Teacher. The grievance of the petitioner is that during his promotion from Primary to Junior High School, he was not given any pay increment and his basic pay remained that he was getting prior to his promotion. Regarding his grievance, he gave several representations to the concerned authorities seeking the pay increments and regular pay according to that. After completing his tenure, 2 the petitioner retired on 30.6.1998, but he did not get his full pay and arrears towards that. After being retired, the petitioner sent representation along with some other applicants to Shiksha Adhikshak, Basic Vibhag, Nagar Kshetra, Kashipur stating therein that they are getting lower pay than their juniors giving details of the persons junior to them and were getting higher salary than what they were getting and also gave details regarding the basic pay, which they were getting as against their juniors and requested the concerned authority to remove the discrepancy from the date the applicants were promoted and pay the applicants their full salary along with arrears. Thereafter, all the persons except the petitioner who had given representation were given their promotional pay increment with effect from the date they were promoted and were also paid the arrears towards it. When the petitioner came to know about the said development, he moved another representation to the respondent no. 2 through Shiksha Adhikshak, Nagar Kshetra, Kashipur stating therein the discriminatory behaviour of the authorities shown towards to the petitioner. In reply to that, the petitioner received the impugned letter dated 23.9.2002 from the respondent no. 4, whereby it was intimated to the petitioner that his representation dated 31.5.2002 was sent with a recommendation to the respondent no. 2, who vide order dated 4.9.2002 has returned the representation stating therein that the benefit of Rule 22 B cannot be given to the petitioner. 3. Counter affidavits have been filed by respondents no. 2 to 5 and 3. In the counter affidavits, it has been stated that since the petitioner had retired on 3 15.11.1988 prior to the issuance of Circular dated 6.11.1989, therefore, he will not be entitled to get the benefit of Section 22-B. 4. Against the said counter affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit stating therein that the contention of the respondent no. 3 cannot be admitted as the same are arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory as the petitioner was admittedly promoted on 15.11.1988 and he ought to have been extended the benefit of the said Circular along with the persons who have been promoted on or after 6.11.1989. 5. In my view, the circular which discriminates and differentiate between the employees of the same footing and grade is bad in the eyes of law. Since, juniors to the petitioners have been given the benefit of 22 B, therefore, he (the petitioner) is also entitled to get the same. The order dated 23.9.2002 is quashed. Respondents are directed to grant the benefit of Section 22 B to the petitioner and to fix his pension according to that benefit. The petitioner shall also be entitled to get the arrears of pay w.e.f. the date of promotion to Assistant Teacher. 6. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 25.7.2008 Rathour