Dhani Ram vs HPSEB and Others

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

i) That the Respondents be directed to grant benefit of stepping up his salary to Rs. 10,000/- per month w.e.f. 30.4.2000 in the pay scale of Rs. 7000-11,750/- i.e. equal to the basic pay being drawn by his junior namely Sh. Parkash Singh Chandel, Respondent No. 3 under the provisions of F.R. 27 considering his case as a case of hardship and also as per the instructions contained in Office Memorandum dated 16.9.2004 (Annexure:A/7)) of Respondent No. 1.

It is not in dispute that the Petitioner is senior to Shri Parkash Singh Chandel, the third Respondent. But the crucial point as is discernible from the writ petition is that the Petitioner got the benefit of FR-22 in the pre-revised scale whereas Parkash Singh Chandel got it in the revised scale. Annexure RA-II, Office Memorandum dated 6.12.1994 is intended to rectify such anomaly. The relevant portion read as follows:

The Board has imposed restriction for not claiming the anomaly by the senior employee caused due to his reasons with his junior and the employees have been demanding for the deletion of the said clause from the office order. The case was considered by the Board and it has been decided that the anomaly caused to the senior employee with his junior due to the grant of compensatory increments during the operation of the said Orders up to 31.10.93 be removed in individual cases due to hardship caused to them. But pay of the senior employee would be fixed/stepped up to the level of his junior w.e.f. 1.5.90.

The stand taken by the Respondents in the reply is that the Petitioner did not object to the junior drawing higher scale within time. Yet another ground taken is that Annexure RA-II , referred to above, prohibits rectification of such anomaly.

It is the case of the Petitioner that his cause of action arose only on 1.1.2001 when alone the Petitioner was put in a situation of drawing lesser pay than the third Respondent and thereafter he has taken up the matter. Till 1.1.2001, the private Respondent was either drawing lesser pay or at least the same pay. Admittedly, the Petitioner has taken steps after the cause of action arose for him. If that be so, the case has to be examined as stated in the Office Memorandum, referred to above.

Yet another ground taken for declining the request of the Petitioner for stepping up the pay is that the anomaly of senior employee directly recruited will be removed only with the directly recruited junior employee, but that provision does not apply to the Petitioner. The Petitioner is not a directly recruited senior employee. He is a senior promottee than the third Respondent who is a directly recruited junior employee. Therefore, the prohibition of rectification of anomaly is only between the directly recruited senior and directly recruited junior. There is no such prohibition of rectification of any anomaly and the directly recruited junior draws higher pay than the promottee senior. Therefore, the case of the Petitioner needs to be examined. There will be a direction to the first Respondent to examine the matter afresh in the light of the observation contained in this judgment and take appropriate action within a period of three months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment, by the Petitioner. We make it clear that in case the Petitioner is found entitled for any benefits in the process, the same shall be computed and disbursed. If required, the pension re-fixed and benefits in that regard will be disbursed within another three months. In case the same is not done between the time frame, the Petitioner will be entitled to the interest @ 8% per annum w.e.f. 1.5.2006, the date of filing of the OA and the Officer responsible for the delay is personally liable for the same.

The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.