PER JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, J. - (1.) THE writ petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Pashim Medinipur dated August 29, 2002 rejecting his request for stepping his pay up to the stage and level of the sixth respondent.
(2.) THERE is no dispute that the petitioner joined the school concerned on August 3, 1976 and the sixth respondent joined it on January 2, 1981. Both of them were appointed as assistant teacher in physical and work education group. Being a person joining the same service first, the petitioner was always getting pay higher than the sixth respondent. The fifth pay commission recommendations were accepted by the government and by memorandum No.25 -SE(B)IM -120/98 dated February 12, 1999 they were made effective as from January 1, 1996. As a result pay of the petitioner and the sixth respondent were to be notionally refixed w.e.f. January 1, 1996; they were to get actual benefits w.e.f. April 1, 1997. It appears from the impugned decision that their pay were refixed w.e.f. April 1, 1996.
(3.) WHILE pay of the petitioner (in the scale of Rs.4,800/ - to 10,925/ -) was fixed at Rs.7,100/ -, pay of the sixth respondent (in the scale of Rs.4,650/ - to 10,175/ -) was fixed at Rs.6,925/ -. On the ground that on January 2, 1999 the sixth respondent, having completed eighteen years ' service, became entitled to get her pay refixed, the authority refixed her pay (in the scale of Rs.4,800/ - to 10,925/ -) at Rs.7,550/ -. Her pay was again refixed on January 2, 2001 on the ground having completed twenty years ' service, according to provisions of the memorandum, she became entitled to get one additional increment; as a result her pay was fixed at Rs.8,225/ - (in the same scale of Rs.4,800/ - to 10,925/ - ). Consequently the sixth respondent started getting pay higher than the petitioner.;