CWP No. 13298 of 2002 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … CWP No. 13298 of 2002 Date of decision: September 22,2008 Vidya Parkash Gupta ..Petitioner. Versus Punjab and Haryana High Court through its Registrar ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. I.D.Singla, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Anand Chhibber, Advocate for the respondents ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. The petitioner was promoted as Superintendent Grade I with effect from 1.7.1985 in the pay scale of Rs.800-1400 and his pay was fixed at Rs.1080/- + 50 Spl. Pay. After the revision of pay scales with effect from 1.1.1986, his pay was fixed at Rs.2460/- P.M. In the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500. One P.N.Sharma, who was admittedly junior to the petitioner was promoted with effect from 6.1.1986 and his pay was fixed at Rs.2520/- P.M. The pay of the petitioner was also stepped up and refixed at Rs.2520/- P.M. as that of Shri P.N. Sharma, junior to the petitioner. Thereafter, the pay of Shri P.N. Sharma was further increased and fixed at Rs.2580/- P.M. in response to his representation made on the basis of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India cited as High Court of Punjab and Haryana Versus Bahadur Singh Batta JT 2001(5) SC 569. The petitioner also made a representation claiming parity of pay with Shri P.N. Sharma. The representation of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 22.5.2002. The grouse of the petitioner is that on the basis of fundamental CWP No. 13298 of 2002 2 Rule 22-C, he is entitled to be brought at par with his junior i.e., P.N. Sharma by stepping up his pay. Therefore, the order Annexure P-2 vide which his representation has been rejected is erroneous as the same is against the fundamental rules as well as judgment of the Apex Court reported in JT 2001(5) SC 569(Supra). The writ petition has been contested. It has been contended that according to instructions dated 21.6.1990, which are applicable in the case of the petitioner, the benefit of stepping up is admissible, if the Government employee exercise option in this behalf within four months from the date from which the anomaly arises. Since in this case, the petitioner has exercised his option beyond the period of 4 months , he has rightly been denied the benefit. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Undisputedly, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit claimed on the basis of fundamental Rule 22-C and judgment of the Apex Court cited as JT 2001(5) SC 569(Supra). However, the sole reason for refusing to grant the benefit that is as per instructions Annexure R-2/1, the petitioner had failed to exercise his option within the stipulated period of 4 months. The reason for denying the benefit to the petitioner is wrong. As per the record, the pay of Shri P.N. Sharma was fixed at Rs.2580/- vide order dated 29.2.1998 by giving him the benefit of the judgment of Apex Court and the petitioner represented the respondents on 18.4.1998, i.e., within less than two months. Thus the ground taken by the respondents is erroneous. The petitioner has a right to the protection of his pay and his pay has to be stepped up to bring him at par with his juniors and the said benefit cannot be denied only on the basis of such hyper-technical objection. Thus, the order Annexure P-2 is quashed and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to grant of stepped up pay at par with Shri P.N. Sharma with effect from 6.1.1986 with consequential relief arising therefrom. September 22, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE