Civil Writ Petition No.5763 of 1993 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5763 of 1993 Date of decision: September 22, 2010. Sehdev Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate, with Shri Sham Lal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Sudipti Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Petitioner, who retired as a Senior Assistant, has made a grievance that his junior by 13 years, at the relevant time, was drawing same salary as the petitioner was drawing, therefore, under Section 7 of the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988, he should have been granted special pay. It was stated that Rule 12 should have been invoked to make relaxation in the Rules so that hardship caused to the individual employee is taken care. Briefly stated, petitioner was appointed as Clerk in Punjab Jail Department in November, 1959 in the pay scale of Rs.60-175/-. While in service, petitioner learnt English shorthand for a period of two years and Civil Writ Petition No.5763 of 1993 -: 2 :- having acquired proficiency in English shorthand, he was appointed to the post of steno typist in the pay scale of Rs.60-175/- plus special pay of Rs.15/- per month. Petitioner was further promoted as Junior Scale Stenographer in the pay scale of Rs.100-175/- on 23.1.1967. This pay scale was later on revised to Rs.158-300 with effect from 1968. Petitioner's basic salary was fixed at Rs.175/- per month. It is stated that even though petitioner was maintaining a lien as Clerk, he was drawing salary more than a Clerk in the Department. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was promoted as Assistant in 1979 whereas Bikkar Mal who had joined the Department long after the petitioner, was promoted as Assistant in the year 1983 and after revision of pay scale, both were drawing the same scale. It is urged by counsel for the petitioner that Bikkar Mal who is junior to the petitioner ought to have drawn salary less than the petitioner. The very fact that he was drawing salary equal to the petitioner, vests a right in the petitioner that he should be paid more than Bikkar Mal. This argument cannot be accepted. The courts have granted advantage to the senior person in case junior has been drawing salary more than the senior. In those cases also, directions have been given to make the salary of senior equal to that of a junior but a senior cannot claim that since junior is drawing the same salary, therefore his salary should be enhanced. Thus, this argument advanced cannot be accepted. This Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. The rule to relax and grant special pay is only for those cases where there is any legal injury to the concerned person. In the present case, there is no legal injury to the petitioner, therefore, Civil Writ Petition No.5763 of 1993 -: 3 :- neither the law, nor equity flows in his favour. No costs. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] September 22, 2010. Judge kadyan