M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: - (i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the denial or direction the denial of selection grade in the pay scale of Rs. 6500 -10500 may kindly be declared to be illegal and the same may be quashed and set -aside; (ii) by a further appropriate writ, order of direction para 3 of Finance Department's order dated 25.1.1992 may also kindly be declared to be illegal and arbitrary and the same may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to pay selection grade in the pay scale of Rs. 6500 -10500 to the petitioners from the date they became eligible for the same with arrears throughout and interest at the rate of 18% per annum. (iii) any other appropriate writ, order of direction, which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners; (iv) costs of the writ petitioner may kindly be awarded to the petitioner. Brief facts are that petitioners were initially appointed on the post of L.D.C. On completion of nine years of service, they were granted benefit of first selection scale. Since they were not granted promotion even before completion of 18 years of service, second selection scale was granted to them vide Annexure 8. The petitioners were fixed in the pay scale of 1400 -2600. On completion of 27 years of service, they became entitled for third selection scale in view of the Circular dated 25.1.1992 (Annexure 9). Before completion of 27 years of service, petitioners were granted promotion to the post of Assistant Tourist Officer carrying lower pay scale then petitioners were getting after benefit of second selection scale. They were denied benefit of third selection scale in view of one promotion. The persons junior to the petitioners appointed on the post of L.D.C. were also given benefit of first and second selection scale. They were, however, not promoted to the post of Assistant Tourist Officer for want of educational qualification. On completion of 27 years of service, junior employees were given benefit of third selection and accordingly they started drawing pay in the higher pay scale. ? The petitioners, though seniors and better qualified were denied benefit of third selection scale thereby getting lower pay scale while working on higher post then of their junior.
(2.) The petitioners have two fold claim to make pursuant to the circular dated 25.1.1992. First claim is for grant of benefit of third selection scale pursuant to para 2(iii), as petitioners were not given benefit of three promotions. In the alternative, it is prayed that pursuant to para 3, petitioners are entitled for grant of benefit of first selection scale after nine years of their promotion on the post of Assistant Tourist Officer.
(3.) The respondents have denied the benefit either ways, thus petitioners approached this Court after rejection of their representation.;