1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5470/2005 Satya Narain Mishra vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 24/11/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Ajay Gupta for the petitioner. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the State. ****** This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondents in fixing his pay lower than the pay of his junior Hari Singh. Petitioner was appointed as Teacher Gr.III on 7.7.1958 whereas Hari Singh was appointed on such post on 25.8.1961. Petitioner was promoted on the post of Teacher Gr.III (Sr. Teacher) on 23.1.1984 against the quota of the year 1983-94 and petitioner joined in such post on 31.3.1984, whereas Hari Singh who has also been promoted on the same post against the quota of the same year 1983-84 joined in such post on 9.1.1985. While making pay fixation, the pay of the petitioner in that post was fixed at Rs.880/-, whereas Hari Singh was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.900/-. Petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents on 11.1.1995 to correct the pay anomaly in accordance with Rule 35-A of Rajasthan Civil Services. He then made another representation to the Deputy Director, Churu on 22.5.2000. On being 2 required the Principal Government Sr. Secondary School, Babai, where the petitioner was posted, sent the service book of the petitioner to District Education Officer, Jhunjhunu. Certain clarifications were called for, which were also sent by the Principal of that school to District Education Officer with his letter dated 7.4.05. When nothing was done, he approached this Court. The respondents in reply to the writ petition have not denied that petitioner was senior to Hari Singh and that they were both promoted pursuant to the recommendation of the same DPC against the vacancies of the same quota i.e. 1983-84 in which placement of the petitioner was higher than that of Hari Singh but what is contended is that Hari Singh was wrongly paid the notional pay scale with effect from 1.4.1983, whereas the vacancies being of the year 1983-84, he should have been given benefit with effect from 31.3.1984. This is not even their case that such pay scale has been withdrawn in the case of Hari Singh. However, they show that his pay scale was erroneously fixed at Rs.900/-, but pay of the petitioner was correctly fixed at Rs.880/-. I hardly find any justification in the submission of the respondents. Firstly, it cannot be said to be a case of mistake because both of them have been promoted for the vacancies of the year 1983-84 and 3 therefore the pay fixation was to be made on 1.4.1983. Hari Singh was given notional benefit of pay fixation with effect from 1.4.1983 although actually he joined the post of promotion on 9.1.1985 by the time the year had gone by. The same benefit should have been given to the petitioner with effect from 1.4.1983 when the year 1983-84 began because he had joined earlier than him on 31.3.1984, which is when the year came to an end. The case of the petitioner in my considered view is squarely covered by Rule 35A of the Rajasthan Civil Services and conditions enumerated therein are fully satisfied. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to fix the step up of pay of the petitioner at par with that of Hari Singh and grant him consequential benefits and arrears together with interest @ 6% per annum. Compliance of the judgement be made within a period of moths from the date copy of this judgement is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/-