- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The Employees' State Insurance Corporation, represented by its Director General and Regional Director, is the appellant in all these appeals. Respondent 1, in each of these appeals, is the contesting respondent. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the contesting respondents who have appeared in person.
(3.) The appellant-corporation has a Regional Office at Bangalore and local offices at smaller places. One such local office is at Shahbad town. In the year 1982 the Corporation invited options from the Upper Division Clerks for being posted as the UDC In-charge at the local offices. The contesting respondents who were senior to Respondent 2 and working in the Regional Offices expressed their unwillingness for being posted as UDC In-charge at the local offices. Therefore, Respondent 2 came to be posted as UDC In-charge of the local office in Shahbad with effect from 21/9/1984 as no official senior to him was willing to be posted to that place. Respondent 2 worked as UDC In-charge from 21/9/1984 to 4/10/1985. He also worked as a Head Clerk at that place on an ad hoc basis from 5/10/1985 till his regular promotion as Head Clerk on 26-7-1989. On his promotion as Head Clerk his pay was fixed at Rs. 1680 with effect from 1/6/1989. The contesting respondents also came to be promoted as Head Clerks and their pay was fixed at Rs. 1,640. 00. As they were senior to Respondent 2 and yet their pay was fixed at a lower rate they made representations under FR 22-C seeking parity of their pay with that of Respondent 2. As the representations were rejected they approached the central Administrative tribunal, Bangalore bench, for a direction to the Corporation to step up their pay so as to bring it on a par with that of Respondent 2.;