THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.A.No.1166 of 2003 ORDER: ( per GM,J) This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 21.03.2003 in W.P.No.6813 of 1994 whereunder the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein directing the appellants to remove the anomaly of pay and fix his salary on par with the salary of one K.S. Rao from the appropriate dates in accordance with the circular dated 06.10.1990. The said writ petition was filed by the respondent challenging the proceedings dated 15.03.1994 issued by the first appellant and to direct the appellants to pay him the scale on par with K.S. Rao who is junior to him and also on par with the other junior employees with effect from the date of promotion of his juniors. It is the case of the respondent that he has been promoted as Assistant Depot Clerk in the year 1982 from the post of conductor by way of direct promotion. While so, during the year 1989, some persons were promoted to a special grade post and further to Grade-I from the post of conductor. Special grades were created with effect from 1.05.1989 and many of the juniors to the respondent were given the benefits of special grade and accordingly their pay was fixed at Rs.1590/-. Thereafter, K.S. Rao one of his juniors was promoted as Assistant Depot Clerk on 01.08.1990 and he was put in the pay scale of Rs.1830/- whereas at that time, the respondent was placed in the same post of Assistant Depot Clerk in the scale of Rs.1650/- + Rs.20/-, therefore, there is a difference of about Rs.200/- in his pay scale. In spite of rendering so much of service, the respondent is being paid lesser pay than K.S. Rao who was promoted only on 01.08.1990. As there is anomaly in fixation of pay between the seniors and the juniors, the matter was brought to the notice of the Management through National Mazdoor Union and also through individual representations. The second appellant issued a circular dated 06.10.1990 wherein the pay of senior employees promoted directly and junior employees who were sanctioned special grade and later promoted to the next higher post, was refixed and that the Vice Chairman and Managing Director accorded sanction to fix the pay of the senior employees equal to the pay as fixed for the juniors in the higher post subject to certain conditions. It is the case of the respondent that in spite of the same, the appellants have not implemented their own circular insofar as he is concerned. It is his grievance that though his junior K.S. Rao was promoted only on 01.08.1990 much after his promotion as Assistant Depot Clerk, the said K.S. Rao has been drawing more pay than him. Therefore, the respondent filed a writ petition being W.P.No.19283 of 1993 which was disposed of by this Court on 03.12.1993 directing the appellants to consider the case of the respondent and fix his pay in terms of circular dated 06.10.1990. The appellants reconsidered the matter and passed the impugned order denying the benefit of circular dated 06.10.1990 to the respondent. The respondent thereafter filed the present writ petition contending that there is no justification on the part of the appellants in not fixing his pay on par with his junior K.S.Rao. The appellants have filed their counter contending that in accordance with the circular, the respondent was not entitled to any hike in his salary merely on the ground that his junior was drawing higher salary. The learned single Judge after considering the matter and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, observed that the respondent and K.S. Rao were holding the same post carrying the same scale of pay and that K.S. Rao got three fixations as he was not directly promoted but he was given a special grade before his promotion. It is the contention of the appellants before the learned single Judge that since K.S. Rao got three fixations one on 1.05.1989 when first fixation was made on placement and special grade stagnation, second fixation on promotion as conductor to Grade-I and third fixation on promotion as Assistant Depot clerk, therefore his case cannot be compared with the case of the respondent. The learned single Judge observed that the distinction sought to be drawn between the respondent and K.S. Rao is that K.S. Rao got three fixations while the respondent was promoted on 16.06.1982 as Controller with one pay fixation. Whether K.S. Rao by his placement in special grade and then by promotion got three or two fixations is immaterial. The appellants, in terms of the circular, have to consider whether the respondent and K.S. Rao are holding the same post and whether K.S. Rao was junior to the respondent. Both these facts have been admitted even in the counter affidavit and also in the impugned order. Stating that the distinction sought to be drawn is only imaginary the learned Judge held that the respondent was entitled to pay parity with K.S. Rao in terms of the circular dated 06.10.1990 and allowed the writ petition as aforementioned. Hence, the writ appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants contended since the case of K.S. Rao stands on different footing, the respondent cannot claim pay parity with K.S. Rao. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the learned single Judge rightly allowed the writ petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the well considered order. Having regard to the fact that the respondent and K.S. Rao are holding the same post, the appellants, in terms of the circular, have to consider case of the respondent and as rightly observed by the learned single Judge, the distinction sought to be drawn by the appellants is only imaginary. In view of the same, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge. Therefore, the writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED,J K.G.SHANKAR,J Dt. 28.04.2011. lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.A.No.1166 of 2003 ( per GM,J) Dt. 28.04.2011