R CHELLAPPAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES AND ACCOUNTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the parties concerned. The petitioner has stated that the he was appointed as an Accountant in the respondent Department, with effect from 7.10.1971. In the year 1985, the petitioner was promoted as a Superintendent, with effect from 3.10.1985. On attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner had retired from service, with effect from 28.2.1993.

(2.) THE petitioner had submitted a representation, dated 17.7.1993, for stepping up his pay equal to that of his Junior. THE request of the petitioner had been rejected by an order of the first respondent, dated 7.2.1994. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred an original application in O.A.No.5225 of 1994, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.18145 of 2006.

(3.) IN view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the relief-s sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court as it is devoid of merits. From the reply affidavit filed by the respondents, it is clear that there is no anomaly arising directly as a result of the application of Fundamental Rule 22 B. IN fact, P.S.Vasantha, who is junior to the petitioner, has been drawing higher pay based on the increments granted to her as she was sanctioned the Graduate Allowance (three increments) since she was a graduate. Further, she was sanctioned an advance increment, with effect from 30.10.1979, for undergoing sterilization operation, as per G.O.Ms.No.3134, Health and Family Planning Department, dated 14.12.1976. Further, the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for granting the reliefs as prayed for by him. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.