1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3605/1996 Moda Ram vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 7.1.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr.Pradeep Shah, for the petitioner. Mr.Ashok Chhagani, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The controversy is short and detail facts are not necessary in view of the admitted fact that petitioner who was initially appointed on the post of Constable on 1st May, 1966 was promoted to the post of Head Constable from 19th April, 1976 and the respondent no.3 Mohan Lal was junior to him. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner is being paid less salary than the respondent no.3 who is junior to the petitioner. The petitioner's contention is that he was never punished and his salary has not been reduced by any order. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to salary, which is being paid to the respondent no.3, who is junior to the petitioner. The respondents have admitted this fact that petitioner is senior to respondent no.3, however, according 2 to the respondents, the petitioner had option to opt for pay fixation under Rule 10 of the Rajsthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1983) and the petitioner opted for revised pay scale w.e.f. 1st Sept., 1981, whereas the respondent no.3 opted for revised pay scale for 1st Sept., 1984 as it was permissible. As per the petitioner's own option, his pay was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.490-840 and at Rs.520 on 1st Sept., 1987 and the fixation of the respondent no.3 was made at Rs.610/- according to respondent nos.3' option (w.e.f.1st Sept., 1984), therefore, the lower salary of the petitioner is because he opted for particular pay fixation under rule from particular date which ultimately went disadvantageous to the petitioner. According to the respondents specific rule has been framed in the Rules of 1983 which is Rule 49 wherein it has been specifically provided that because of giving option if a junior starts getting more salary than his senior obviously as senior has not opted in the same way in which his junior opted then the salary of senior cannot be increased to the salary of his junior. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the Rules, 9, 10, 11 and 14 of the Rules of 1983. Rule 9 (i) provides that the rules shall be 3 applicable to all the employees and the employee shall be entitled to opt for a particular pay scale so as to remain in the same pay scale till particular date and the employees were given option to opt in revised pay scale. The petitioner and respondent no.3 both submitted their option. The petitioner opted for pay scale w.e.f. 1st Sept., 1981. This fact is not in dispute. The respondent no.3 has opted revision of pay scale w.e.f. 1st Sept., 1984. Had it been a case of initial pay fixation under Rule 11 then by virtue of Rule 14(2)(ka), the anomaly could have been redressed with the help of said Rule 14(2)(ka), but that provision has been made because of the reason that under Rule 11 there is no role of the employee and employer is required to initially fixed the pay scale of any employee. The petitioner knowingly submitted his option under Rule 9 read with Rule 10 of the Rules of 1983 for having a particular pay scale. Specific rule has been framed that if junior opt in particular pay and gets more salary and because of that reason the senior who opted for a different date, fixation of pay scale he cannot get the pay equal to his junior. The validity of this rule is not under challenge, therefore, the respondents rightly granted the different pay scale to the petitioner than the pay scale which is given to the respondent no.3. 4 In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. cpgoyal/-