(1.) CHALLENGING the order, dated 02.11.2010, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.465 of 2009, dismissing the claim made by the petitioner for stepping up her pay on par with her junior and to pay the arrears of pay and allowances, this writ petition has been filed by her, seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to step up her pay on par with her juniors and also to pay the arrears of pay and allowances and all other service benefits to the petitioner.
(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the entered into the service of the Postal Department on 29.08.1981 and her junior, one Ravichandran, has joined service on 18.11.1981. IT is the grievance of the petitioner that both of them were given promotion on getting Lower Selection Grade under Time Bound One Promotion Scheme and while the petitioner"s pay was fixed as Rs.4750/- as on 01.01.1998, the pay scale of the said Ravichandran has been fixed as Rs.4875/- and though she made several representations to the respondents 1 to 4 to step up her pay on par with her junior right from the year 1998, the third respondent, as per order dated 15.02.2007, has replied that the petitioner"s request for condonation of delay in considering option for fixation of pay has been rejected by the fifth respondent. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file O.A.No.465 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to step up her pay on par with her juniors and also to pay the arrears of pay and allowances and all other service benefits to the petitioner.
(3.) WE have gone through the entire materials placed on record. From the perusal of the records, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the original application, which was filed by the petitioner to step up her pay on par with her junior. Though it is the case of the respondents 1 to 4 that as on the crucial date, the petitioner has not exercised her option, whereas her junior has exercised his option and the pay scale of the petitioner, but it is asserted that immediately, when the petitioner came to know about the parity between the pay scales, she has submitted a representation on 21.09.1998 to the third respondent to step up her pay on par with her junior, which is also admitted in the reply affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 4 before the Tribunal, in paragraph No.11, that the petitioner has made a representation in this regard since 1998 to various levels in the Department. It that is the case, the respondents 1 to 4, instead of considering the case of the petitioner, rejected her case, which is considered to be illegal.