Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has instituted the instant writ proceedings, praying for the following relief(s): (i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to grant advance increments, not adjustable in future increment, in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. the date other employees of the TRIFED have been granted such advance increments i.e. 1.4.98. (ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to pay arrears of advance increments w.e.f. 1.4.98. (iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) SHORN off unnecessary details, the indispensable material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy needs to be first noticed. The petitioner has staked his claim on the ground that the junior persons, to the petitioner, have been accorded benefits of advance increments vide order dated 31st March, 1998. The petitioner, being senior, is also entitled for the same relief but he has been deprived without any cogent and convincing reasons sustainable in law. Taking note of the rival submissions, on 13th March, 2014, on the prayer of the counsel for the respondents, permission was granted to the respondents, to place on record, the copies of the orders, by which the advance increments accorded to juniors to the petitioner, were withdrawn.
(3.) THE respondents have placed on record an order dated 25th September, 2002, from where it is reflected that the benefit of two/three advance increments, with effect from 1.4.1998, not adjustable in future increments; granted to 52 employees of the respondent -Federation, have been withdrawn. The petitioner responding to the additional affidavit, filed his counter on 27th May, 2014, with the statement that the juniors to the petitioner were accorded illegal and undue benefits whereas the petitioner has been deprived of the same without any fault on his part. Thus, the claim of the petitioner is for grant of same benefits, which were granted to the junior persons though those benefits might have been withdrawn vide order dated 25th September, 2002.;