HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION NO:6337 OF 2000 DATED:19.8.2010. Between: T. Subrahmanyam Reddy …Petitioner And: 1. The Superintending Engineer, Operation, A.P. Transco, Tirupathi, Chittoor District and another. …Respondents. This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION NO:6337 OF 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in paying lesser salary to the petitioner than that of his juniors and in not providing equal pay for equal work as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondents to revise and regulate the pay scale of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.5.1992 on par with that of the L.D.C. and Revenue Cashiers, who are juniors to him and who were given the revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.5.1992 as per B.P.M.S.No.652 dated 24.8.1992. The case of the petitioner reads as follows: He was appointed as Bill Collector on 18.9.1981 and subsequently, he was redesignated as Revenue Cashier w.e.f. 1.5.1982 and subsequently, he was appointed as L.D.C. in the time scale of pay of Rs.490-15-535-20-775-250-875 and after completion of 8 years of service in the cadre of L.D.C., the benefit of selection grade post was given to him. The Revenue Cashiers, who were redesignated along with him and who were working as such w.e.f. 1.5.1982 are getting more pay and more monetary benefits and in spite of his representation, no action has been taken. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. The main grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that his junior is drawing more salary. While submitting a calculation memo signed by the Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Rev. Office, Puttur, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents clarified that Rs.30/- is being paid to one Kannaiah, who is junior to the petitioner, w.e.f. 1.5.1987 towards F.P. and therefore, there is a variation in the pay scales of the petitioner and his junior. In view of the clarification made by the learned Standing Counsel, I feel that no direction need be issued to the respondents and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari Date:19.08.2010 NN HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION NO:6337 OF 2000 DATE:19.8.2010.