Basudeva Panigrahi, J. - (1.) The petitioners have filed this case for C30C stepping up their scale of pay with the Respondent No. 6 as per Rule 55(4) of the West Bengal Service Rules Part-I. The petitioner No. 1 joined in service in December, 1973 and was promoted to the post of Tax Collector with effect from 1st August, 1987 whereas the petitioner No. 2 joined in service on 1st August, 1972 and confirmed on 1st December, 1972. The petitioner No. 1 has been receiving the scale of pay as on 1st June; 1999 at Rs. 7361/- including dearness allowance and other allowances whereas the petitioner No. 2 has been receiving the scale of pay as on 1st June, 1999 at Rs 7,156/- including dearness allowance and other allowances. The Respondent No. 6 entered into service on 2nd November, 1974 and con firmed in his post on 1st May, 1977 and was allowed to work as Head Clerk in charge. The scale of pay of Respondent No. 6 as on 1st June 1999 was at Rs. 8527/- including dearness allowance and other allowances. Therefore, the petitioners have claimed that their scale of pay should be stepped up with the Respondent No. 6.
(2.) Before filing this case they filed a representation before the Chairman, Jalpaiguri Municipality and the matter was referred to the Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 2 was, of course, not inclined to allow the petitioners prayer on the ground that since the appointment of Respondent No. 6 was not approved by the State Government, therefore the petitioners scale of pay cannot be stepped up with the Respondent No. 6. Mr. Bose, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has strongly, contended that since Rule 55(4) of the West Bengal Rules Part-I does not postulate any such distinction between the approved and non-approved employees working in the State Government, therefore, such order passed by the Respondent No. 2 appears to be untenable. On a plain reading of the provision of the said service rules it, of course, does not indicate that the appointment of a junior employee should receive the approval of the State Government but, however, from the contentions of the learned Advocate it appears that Respondent No. 6 has been temporarily kept in charge of Head Clerk. The fact remains that Respondent No. 6 is drawing more scale of pay than the petitioners who are senior to him. Therefore the petitioners are entitled to get the same scale of pay as that of Respondent No. 6. But, however, such arrangement shall continue till the approval matter is finalised. In case the State Government turns down the approval of the appointment of Respondent No. 6, steps may be taken by the Municipality concerned to realise the amount so paid to the Respondent No. 6 as well as to the petitioners. Learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No. 5 has, however, submitted that although the matter is pending with the Government as regards approval of Respondent No. 6, no final decision has been taken. Thus hereby direct Respondent No. 2 to take decision in the matter with regard to the approval of the appointment of Respondent No. 6 within a period of six weeks from the date and communicate it to the Municipality concerned, Respondent No. 5.
(3.) The scale of pay of the petitioners shall be stepped up with the scale of pay of Respondent No. 6 with effect from 1st June, 1995, but, of course this arrangement shall continue till the decision of the Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 5 shall continue to pay to the petitioners from February, 2000 the scale of pay and other allowances as is being paid to Respondent No. 6.;