Judgment:
1. By present OA, applicant challenges Memorandum issued in December, 2005, received by him on 19.12.2005, whereby his representation dated 01.12.2005 for removing alleged anomaly in pay had been rejected.
2. The facts as stated are that applicant is holding post of Superintendent in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan since December 1989 and had been drawing basic pay of Rs. 7,775/- as on 1.12.2005. His junior, viz. Smt. Shashi Khanna, who was promoted to said post in the year 1992 was drawing basic pay of Rs. 8,425/- as on 01.12.2005. Therefore, he submitted a representation dated 01.06.2005 (Annexure A/3) followed by reminder dated 1.12.2005, which ultimately had been rejected vide impugned communication.
3. The grievance of applicant is that aforesaid Memorandum vide which his request has been rejected is evasive and in no manner falls in line with relevant rules and instructions on the subject. Applicant as well as Smt. Shashi Khanna had their initial appointment in Clerical cadre and applicant being senior to her in the present post of Superintendent could not have been paid lesser basic pay than the said junior. Placing reliance on Judgment dated 13.04.1994 in S. Santhanam v. UOI and Ors.
reported in Swamy's CL Digest, 1994-241 as well as judgment dated 29.02.1996 of Ernakulam Bench in P. Nalakrishnan v. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. (Swamy's CL Digest, 1996/1-269), Judgment dated 13.10.1995 of Mumbai Bench in R.N. Udupa and Ors. v. UOI and Ors. (Swamy's CL Digest, 1996/1-266) & Judgment dated 23.12.1994 of Jabalpur Bench in S.R. Shrivastava & V.G. Saxena v. UOI and Ors.
(309-Swamy's CL Digest, 1995/1), it was contended that applicant was entitled to stepping up of pay at par with his junior.
4. Respondents contested the claim laid and stated that for stepping up of pay, following conditions should be satisfied, namely: (a) Both the junior and senior officers should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical and in the same cadre; The scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical; The anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of FR 22-C. For example, if even in the lower post the junior officer draws from time to time a higher rate of pay than the senior by virtue of grant of advance increments, the above provisions will not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior officer.
As far as applicant is concerned, he was working as Head Clerk in pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- prior to his promotion as Superintendent through departmental examination, whereas Smt. Shashi Khanna was working as Audit Assistant in pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- prior to her promotion as Superintendent on seniority basis. As such, aforesaid conditions laid in paras (a) & (b) above to remove anomaly by stepping up are not fulfilled. Moreover, condition (c) is also not applicable as anomaly is not directly as a result of application of FR 22-C. The case of applicant is not comparable with Smt. Shashi Khanna as both were being in different cadres prior to their promotion to grade of Superintendent. Moreover, applicant was promoted to the post of Superintendent through departmental examination, whereas Smt. Shashi Khanna was promoted to said post based on seniority. Hence there is no anomaly and application deserves to be dismissed, contended Ms. Yogmaya Agnihotri, learned Counsel. It was also pointed out to us that Smt.
Shashi Khanna has already attained the age of superannuation on 30.09.2006, whereas applicant is about to attain age of superannuation on 30.04.2008. Moreover, Audit Assistant was carrying pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600/- while post of Head Clerk was in pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300/-.
5. We heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings on record carefully, besides original records, including their service books, produced by respondents to establish the averments made by them in reply.
6. On bestowing our careful consideration to all aspects of the case, as noticed hereinabove, we are of the view that applicant as well as Smt. Shashi Khanna did not belong to same cadre and posts held prior to their promotion as Superintendent and further both of them were holding different pay scales, as noticed hereinabove. Even the so-called anomaly in pay fixation is not the direct result of application of FR 22-C. In the circumstances, the case of applicant was not comparable with Smt. Shashi Khanna. Conditions, which are to be satisfied before considering the case for removal of anomaly, as noticed hereinabove, thus were not satisfied.
7. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we do not find any justification in the contention raised by applicant and finding no merit, OA is dismissed. No costs.