IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4126 of 2006 SURESH CHANDRA PANDEY, Son of late Awadh Bihari Pandey Ex-CPRC Katihar North East Frontier Railway, resident of Larkania Tola PS and District Katihar Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the General Manager, North East Frontier Railay, Maligaon Railway Head Quarter, Guwahati-11 (Assam) 2. The Chief Mechanical Engineer, North East Frontier Railay, Maligaon Railway Head Quarter, Guwahati-11 (Assam) 3. The Divisional Railway Manager, Katihar, North East Frontier Railay, PS and District Katihar 4. S. K. Chaudhary, Assistant Mechanical Engineer through the Chief Mechanical Engineer, North East Frontier Railay, Maligaon Railway Head Quarter, Guwahati-11 (Assam) 5. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna through its Registrar, Sri Krishna Nagar, PS Kotwali District Patna ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. A. Alam, Advocate Md. Rashid Alam, Advocate For the Union of India: Mr. Shabbir Alam, Advocate ------------ 8 06-02-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India. We find that at the time of entry into service as Khalasi the petitioner was in pay scale of Rs. 30/- whereas at the time of entry into service respondent no.4 was in the pay scale of Rs. 125-155/- as Assistant Fire Man. Even subsequent service records of the two rivals show that respondent no.4 opted and became Power Controller in the year 1974 whereas the petitioner opted for the post in 1981. Thus, in the higher grade also respondent no.4 had become senior and was drawing higher pay scale on account of annual increments which were due to him as per law. Even at the subsequent stage of further promotion in 1984 the respondent no.4 was getting higher pay. A faint grievance was raised on behalf of the petitioner that in 1974 respondent no.4 was favoured and petitioner should also have - 2 - been considered for the post of Power Controller. This grievance was not raised before the Tribunal and in any case it is belated claim because many further promotions had taken place and the O.A was filed in the year 2001. We find no merit in the claim of the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. BKS/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) (J. N. Singh, J.)