ANIL KUMAR ARORA Vs. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is working on the post of Private Secretary-cum-Judgment Writer in the establishment of the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to assail the action of the respondents in denying him one annual grade increment and the order dtd. 11/6/2020 (Annexure-16) whereby, the representation dtd. 4/12/2018 (Annexure-15) filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid denial was rejected and to direct that the anomaly existing in the pay of the petitioner vis-a-vis with that of another Private Secretary-cum-Judgment Writer namely Ms. Tak, at par with the petitioner, be removed.

(2.) Shri Vikas Balia, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Hemant Ballani urged that the action of the respondents in denying same basic pay to the petitioner as another Private Secretary who is equal in rank and seniority to the petitioner and at par is absolutely unjustified, arbitrary and amounts to hostile discrimination. He urged that the petitioner submitted a representation dtd. 4/12/2018 (Annexure-15) to the respondent authorities for removal of this pay anomaly and in response thereto, the order dtd. 11/6/2020 (Annexure-16) was received wherein, it was mentioned that this pay anomaly was on account of adverse remark in the APAR. However, in reply to the writ petition, the respondents have changed their stance and have claimed that the Private Secretary Ms. Tak with whom the petitioner claims parity was, as a matter of fact, promoted to the post of Senior Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer much before the petitioner, who was promoted later, on account of pendency of an inquiry against him. It was also averred in the reply that Ms. Tak was conferred an annual grade increment on the promotional post much prior to the petitioner and hence, the anomaly which has arisen in the pay scales is logical and explainable. It was contended that contradictory stands in the order dtd. 11/6/2020 vis-a-vis the reply fortifies the case of the petitioner that the impugned action is arbitrary and illegal. Shri Balia urged that the promotion which was granted to Ms. Tak in the year 2013 was purely ad hoc in nature. The petitioner as well as Ms. Tak were both regularly promoted to the post of Senior Personal Assistant vide order dtd. 8/9/2015 and thus, there cannot be any justification for difference in pay scale of the petitioner and Ms. Tak. He placed reliance on the following Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment:-

(3.) Shri Chayan Bothra, Assistant to Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned Senior Advocate, appeared for the respondents and supported the impugned action. Regarding the inconsistency pointed out in the order (Annexure-16) conveyed to the petitioner while rejecting his representation (Annexure-15) and the pleadings in the reply, Shri Bothra submitted that it was inadvertently conveyed in the order dtd. 11/6/2020 that the pay-scale anomaly of the petitioner was on account of adverse remark in the APAR. However, while filing reply to the writ petition, the record was examined thoroughly and it came to light that Ms. Tak was granted ad hoc promotion as Senior PA-cum-Judgment Writer on 20/12/2013 whereas the petitioner was facing an inquiry and thus, he was not promoted at the same point of time. Ms. Tak was granted an annual grade increment during the period of her assignment as Senior PA-cum-Judgment Writer on ad hoc basis for a period of two years. However, the petitioner was not entitled to such promotion and the annual grade increment because of a pending disciplinary inquiry. The petitioner as well as Ms. Tak were granted regular promotion vide order dtd. 8/9/2015 and since then, the petitioner is drawing salary commensurate to his post. He submitted that difference in pay being drawn by the petitioner and Ms. Tak is absolutely justified and hence, he is not entitled to the relief sought for. He also urged that the petitioner has approached this Court after a significant delay and no justification has been offered for the same and thus, the writ petition should be dismissed for laches.