CWP(T) No. 14591 of 2008 23.02.2011 Present: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Praveen Chandel, Advocate, vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) That the impugned rejections of the representation at Annexure A-5 vide memo dated 20.8.2005 and Annexure A-7 dated 15.11.2006 may very kindly be quashed and set-aside. (ii) That the respondent No. 1 may very kindly be directed to give step-up in the pay of the applicant to bring him at par with the respondent No. 3, who is junior to the applicant with effect from due date, with all consequential benefits.” 2. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the directions issued in the petition filed by the petitioner he was given appointment in the year 1999. The date on which such appointment was given has not been assailed by the petitioner. In the present petition it is the grievance of the petitioner that even though in the seniority list private respondent No. 3 is placed junior to him yet the benefit of higher pay has not been accorded to him. Respondents in their response have clarified that petitioner joined service only on 8.12.1999 whereas the private respondent had already joined on 29.9.1997. According to the respondents Rule 17 of the Fundamental Rules specifically provides that an officer shall begin to draw pay and allowances attached to his tenure of his post with effect from the date he assumes the duties of his post. -2- Hence in the facts of the instant case, in my considered view, the case of the petitioner has rightly not been considered favourably. 3. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned counsel has invited my attention to the case rendered by the Apex Court in Gurcharan Singh Grewal and another versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others, (2009) 3 SCC 94 wherein the Apex Court had directed stepping up of pay for removal of anomaly in the pay scales between two employees. 4. The decision of the Apex Court was taken in the relevant facts. In the instant case undisputedly there is no challenge to the order of appointment which was accepted by the petitioner. Petitioner’s appointment being subsequent in point of time the benefit of the ratio is not applicable in the instant case. Hence the present petitioner devoid of any merit is dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. February 23, 2011 (PK)