Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) The direction sought in the present writ petition is for grant of equal pay as drawn by respondent no. 5 who is stated to be junior to the petitioner but getting more pay than the petitioner. The order dated 08.03.2011 (Annexure P -3) whereby, the case of the petitioner had been rejected by respondent no. 2 has also been challenged and the quashing of the same has been sought for.
(2.) The petitioner had approached this Court earlier in CWP No. 12687 of 2010 that the petitioner's representation dated 08.03.2010 was pending, which was disposed of on 31.07.2010 with a direction that since both the employees were working as Desk Controllers to redress the grievance of the pay anomaly pointed out by the petitioner. The relief being sought was of equal pay for equal work and in the impugned order, reliance has been placed upon the instructions dated 15.04.2002 that the employees should be identical and belong to the same cadre and posts in which they had been promoted. Where the senior government employee opts to get his pay fixation/promotion postponed or opts for revised scale from a day other than the normal appointed day, no relief was to be granted in that case.
(3.) It has been noticed that the petitioner was promoted from skilled worker to junior plant attendant and thereafter to the Auxiliary Plant Attendant (APA) and thereafter to Desk Controller. In contrast, the respondent was working as work charge chargeman and appointed as Instrument Supervisor and then as APA through direct recruitment and finally promoted as Desk Controller. On 23.05.1998, at the time of the promotion of respondent no. 5, the petitioner was drawing Rs. 7500/ - on the post of Desk Controller whereas respondent no. 5 was also drawing the same amount though on the lower rank of APA. However, the said respondent had been given the benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court of the work charge service rendered by him and, therefore, the petitioner's case was rejected.;