KAMAL DAS RAI Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The festering resentment of the Petitioner arises from the perception that he was treated differently from the Respondents No.2 and 3, in terms of the higher scale of pay granted to them although he had appeared for the same interview with them, for posts carrying the same scale of pay, in the year 1991. That, in the year 2017, to his consternation he discovered that the Respondents No.2 and 3 were drawing higher salary, than him, hence the grievances as detailed in the petition with the reliefs sought.

(2.) On 21/7/1991, the Petitioner, the Respondents No.2 and 3 along with other persons comprising a total of thirty-three candidates, with educational qualification of Class X pass, appeared for the interview so conducted. The Petitioner appeared fourth in the merit list for the posts detailed above and was selected to the post of machineman. The post of machineman carried a monthly salary of Rs.1,030.001,680, in the pay scale of Rs.1,030.0025-1230-EB-30-1680, equivalent according to him, to the salary and pay scale of cameraman and platemaking man. Vide Office Order dated 1908-1991 issued by the Respondent No.1, the Petitioner was appointed as machineman and by a similar order of the same date the Respondent No.2 was appointed as cameraman.

(3.) The Respondent No.1 filed their Counter Affidavit to which Rejoinder was filed by the Petitioner. An additional Affidavit came to be filed by the Respondent No.1 averring that the Petitioner on his application dtd. 9/8/2022, seeking promotion was vide Order of the Respondent No.1, dtd. 24/1/2023, promoted to the post of senior machineman in the Level 10 of the Pay Matrix.