CWP-1196/1997 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1196/1997 The Chief Engineer, PHED, Rajasthan & anr. Versus Kishan Lal Sharma & anr. DATE OF ORDER : 13/07/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI *** Mr. Chetan Bairwa, Addl.Govt.Counsel, for petitioners. None present for respondents Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 01/07/1996 passed by the Service Tribunal. The respondent NO.1-appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal with the grievance that Mr. Gulam Mohammed, who was impleaded as respondent NO.3 in the appeal, was junior to him from the date of initial appointment and so also on higher promotions and when the seniority list of LDCs was published by the department on 16/05/1973, name of the respondent-appellant appeared at No. 124 and the name of Mr.Gulam Mohammed, who was junior, appeared at No. 150. Similarly in the list of UDCs dt. 18/06/1985, name of the respondent- appellant was at No. 7 while the name of Mr.Gulam Mohammed was at No. 8. While they were further promoted on the recommendations of the DPC on the post of Office Assistant, the respondent-appellant was selected against the vacancies for the year 1989-90 but his junior CWP-1196/1997 2 Mr.Gulam Mohammed was selected for the year 1990-91. Indisputably, from the material, which came on record, Mr. Gulam Mohammed was throughout junior to the respondent-appellant from the date of initial appointment till he was promoted to the post of Office Assistant. The grievance of the respondent-appellant was that a person, who is indisputably junior to him, is getting higher pay in comparison to him and, as such, the respondent-appellant claimed for stepping up of pay equivalent to what was being drawn by his junior and arrears as well flowing thereof. The learned Tribunal, after examining the record, has arrived at a finding that the respondent-appellant was senior to Mr. Gulam Mohammed who was impleaded as respondent No. 3 in the appeal by the appellant-respondent and in such circumstances, there was no justification available for not stepping up of the pay of respondent No. 1 as Office Assistant equivalent to the pay being drawn by his junior Mr.Gulam Mohammed. The only defence taken by the petitioners before the learned Tribunal was that at one stage, adhoc promotions were made on the post of Office Assistant but the respondent- appellant declined and in such circumstances, even if Mr.Gulam Mohammed was junior to him, CWP-1196/1997 3 the petitioners were justified and that was the reason that Mr.Gulam Mohammed was getting higher pay and the case of stepping of pay as claimed by the respondent-appellant is not made out which was considered and repelled by the learned Tribunal under its order impugned dt. 01/07/1996. Even in the opinion of this Court, if a person, who is senior in the cadre, if has declined to join on adhoc promotions in no manner will deprive him of pay to which he was entitled for and in such circumstances, if a person indisputably junior was getting higher pay in comparison to his senior, the respondent-appellant herein was entitled for stepping up of pay and what was being paid to the person who was junior in the cadre. This Court does not find any manifest error being committed by the learned Tribunal in passing the order impugned dt. 01/07/1996 which may call for any interference. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. The petitioners shall ensure compliance of the order within three months. No costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu/p.3/ 1196-CW-1997-final.doc