JHA, CJ. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the decision of the State Government contained in letter No. F. 17 (27)FD (Gr. 2)/83 in the light of which the Rajasthan High Court by order dated 28. 6. 1986 recalled its earlier order dated 7. 3. 1984 stepping up of the date of increment and the consequential fixation of pay of the petitioner. Besides the order dated 28. 6. 1986 the petitioner has also challenged orders dated 22. 9. 87, 21. 3. 88, 2. 6. 89, 10. 1. 90, 31. 8. 90 and 20. 11. 90. By the said orders, the State Government clarified its stand and declined to modify the basic order and the High Court also declined to interfere.
(2.) SHORN of details, facts of the case relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that while working on the post of Civil Accountant in the Rajasthan High Court in the scale of Rs. 500- 940 and drawing the pay of Rs. 940/- the petitioner was promoted on the post of Superintendent cum Chief Accountant in the scale of Rs. 620-1100 on 2. 1. 1980. On promotion, his pay was fixed at Rs. 985/- in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 with next increment due on 10. 11. 1980. One Ram Singh Bhatnagar (in short Bhatnagar) who was Bench Reader in the scale of Rs. 500-890 and getting pay of Rs. 940/- (including personal pay of Rs. 50), was also promoted as Superintendent in the scale of Rs. 620-1100 with effect from 22. 5. 1980 and on such promotion, his pay too was fixed at 985/-, his next date of increment being 1. 10. 1980. The Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Rules), 1983 (in short the `revised Pay Rules') framed by the Governor of Rajasthan under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India revising the pay scales of the employees of the State Government came into force from 1. 9. 1981. By virtue of the Revised Pay Rules, the existing scale of Rs. 620-1100 was revised to Rs. 820-1550. As a result of pay revision, the pay of both the petitioner and Bhatnagar was fixed at Rs. 1300/- with effect from 1. 9. 1981. The date of increment in the case of Bhatnagar being 1. 10. 1981, his pay was raised to Rs. 1340/- with effect from 1. 10. 1981. The date of increment of the petitioner being 10. 11. 1981, his pay was raised to Rs. 1340/- from 10. 11. 1981. The petitioner made a grievance that being senior to Bhatnagar on the post of Superintendent, his date of increment/pay should be stepped up from the date pay of Bhatnagar was raised, that is, from 1. 10. 1981. His representation was allowed by the High Court and by order dated 7. ;3. 1984 his pay was "stepped up equal to the pay of" Bhatnagar at Rs. 1340/- with effect from 1. 10. 1981 fixing the next date of increment as 1. 10. 1982 under rule 31 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. The order was passed giving reference to rule 14 (2) of the Revised Pay Rules. The State Government did not approve the stepping up by the impugned order dated 28. 6. 1986, and as a result the order dated 7. 3. 1984 was recalled by the High Court. The representations filed by the petitioner having gone in vain, he filed this writ petition. Facts of the case as aforestated are not in dispute. The respondents also do not dispute the case of the petitioner that by virtue of prior his promotion on the post of Superintendent on 2. 1. 1980 as compared to Bhatnagar, he was senior to Bhatnagar who got promotion on the post on 22. 5. 1980. The point is whether the petitioner could claim parity of pay with him. It is to be kept in mind that the pay of Bhatnagar was fixed at Rs. 1340/- on 1. 10. 1981 as it happened to be the due date of increment. It was a chance that due date of increment of the petitioner was later than Bhatnagar and therefore his pay was fixed at Rs. 1340/- later on 10. 11. 1081. Had his due date of increment been prior to 1. 10. 1981 the pay would have been fixed at Rs. 1340/- from such date. Nevertheless it created an anomaly and it was to remove that anomaly, that the High Court had passed the order on 7. 3. 1984.
(3.) IT may be stated here that though the order dated 7. 3. 1984 was passed under sub-rule (2) of rule 14 of the Revised Pay Rules, counsel for the parties agreed that sub-rule (2) can be applied only in cases of anomaly arising from pay fixation as a result of pay revision under the Revised Pay Rules; the anomaly which was sought to be removed by order dated 7. 3. 1984 is contemplated in sub-rule (1) of rule 14. But whereas according to counsel for the petitioner, sub-rule (1) of rule 14 covers the case of the petitioner, according to counsel for the respondents, the conditions laid down in the rule are not satisfied and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the stepping up of his pay/increment in terms of sub-rule (1) of rule 14. Sub-rule (1) of rule 14 of the Revised Pay Rules around which the dispute revolves runs as under:-      " 14. Removal of anomalies.- (1) The next date of increment of a government servant, whose pay is fixed on 1. 9. 1981 at the same stage as the one fixed for another government servant junior to him in the same cadre/service and drawing pay at a lower stage than him in the existing pay scale, shall be granted on the same date as admissible to his junior, if the date of increment of the junior happens to be earlier. " On a plain reading, it would appear that if the pay of `a' was fixed at the same stage on 1. 9. 1981 - which was the date of commencement of the Revised Pay Rules, and the pay of `b' - junior to `a' - was also fixed at the same stage on that Date, `a' could be allowed the next increment on the same date on which the increment became due to `b', if the date of increment of `b' happened to be earlier. As mentioned above, there is no dispute between the parties that by virtue of his prior promotion compared to Bhatnagar the petitioner was senior to him in the cadre of Superintendent but the pay of Bhatnagar was raised to Rs. 1340/- on 1. 10. 1981, which was the due date of increment, and the pay of petitioner remained Rs. 1300/- till 9. 11. 1981. ;