MOHINDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The limited grievance made by learned counsel for the petitioners before us is that prior to the appointment of the petitioners as Divisional Accountant in the Central Government service, on their having passed Indian Recruitment Examination (IRE) in the year 1973, they were working as Accounts Clerks in the State of Punjab and persons junior to them in the State of Punjab, who had also similarly passed the examination and had been appointed in the Central Government Service are getting higher pay than them. The petitioners, in fact, seek correction of their pay anomaly. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the pay scales of the Divisional Accountants were revised under the Central Civil Services Revised Pay Rules, 1973, w.e.f. 01.01.1973 and the DA was merged with the basic pay. However, the benefit of pay revision was extended to employees who were in service on 01.01.1973, while the petitioners joined on 01.11.1973 and were not given the benefit. It is, however, contended that Mohan Lal and others came to the Central Government Service after 01.01.1978, by which time the State Government also had merged the DA with the basic pay at Consumer Price Index (CPI) 320 while in the Central Government CPI of 200 was given. It is submitted that this has given rise to the grievance of the petitioners and the pay anomaly.

(2.) In our view, learned counsel for the petitioners, rightly relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of "Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. of Haryana and others v. Ram Sarup Ganda and others, 2007 2 SCT 476, to advance the proposition that where higher pray scale to a junior than his senior in the cadre gives rise to an anomaly, in the absence of specific prohibition, such anomaly can be rectified by giving step up to the senior also to bring the senior at par with his junior.

(3.) In the facts of the present case, undisputedly, persons who were junior to the petitioners in the State of Punjab and continued to be junior to them in the Centre get a higher pay because of this anomaly and thus the principle of step up should be applied in the case of petitioners in view of the parity to the petitioners.