IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 15755 of 2010 Date of Decision: September 6, 2010 Bakshish Chand …Petitioner Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. N.P. Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. Having failed to persuade the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), an employee of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the order passed by the Tribunal, dated 26.4.2010 (P-13), be set aside and direction be issued to the respondents to step up his pay by bringing it at par with his juniors Sarvshri Nirmal Singh and Harbhajan Dass, who are respondent Nos. 5 and 6. A further prayer for re- fixation of pay with consequential benefits have also been made. 2. The Tribunal noticed the official memorandum dated 4.11.1993 (Annexure R-1/1), which stipulates that if senior joins the higher post later than on his junior for whatever reasons then the senior cannot claim stepping up of CWP No. 15755 of 2010 pay at par with his junior. The Tribunal recorded categorical finding that the petitioner joined duty on 18.12.1991 whereas respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were appointed as JTOs on 2.5.1986 and 13.6.1986 respectively. Moreover, both the respondents had qualified the examination without any relaxed standard, whereas the petitioner was declared qualified later on by giving relaxation. In that regard the Tribunal relied on the view taken by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. R. Swaminathan, 1997 (5) SLR 592. It has been held that on account of promotion given to the juniors earlier to the petitioner, the pay of a senior cannot be stepped up as per the provisions of Fundamental Rule 22(1)(a)(1). It has been held that such a difference of pay cannot be regarded as an anomaly which could be corrected by issuance of mandamus. Moreover, the petitioner stands already retired and have been asking for the relief belatedly. There is, thus, no merit in the instant petition and the same does not warrant admission. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) September 6, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2