Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the judgment of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal dated 30.7.2002 whereby his appeal claiming stepping up of pay in terms of Rule-4 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1998 was dismissed.
(2.) Shri S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Male Nurse Gr.II in the year 1983 and accordingly joined on 1.9.1983. The date of his increment became due every year in September. He was granted pay scale no. 12 of 1400-2600 as per the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1989 and was fixed at Rs.1600/- as on 1.9.1991. The petitioner passed B.Sc. Nursing on 30.1.1992. As per Rule 13, the petitioner was granted benefit of two advanced grade increments of Rs.50/- each in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 and his basic pay was fixed at Rs.1700 on 30.1.1992. Accordingly, on 1.9.1992, his pay was fixed at Rs.1750/-. Since the petitioner completed nine years of service, he was granted selection grade and placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2900 and accordingly his pay was revised from Rs.1750/- to Rs.1820/- as on 1.9.1992. Thereafter, his pay was revised under the Revised Pay Scale Rules of 1998 and his pay was fixed at Rs.6,900/-. One Satish Chandra Sharma also joined on the post of Male Nurse Gr.II on 10.2.1984 and his date of increment was fixed on 10th February of each year. He was getting a sum of Rs.1600/- on 10.2.1992 in the scale of Rs. 1400-2600. When he completed nine years of service on 10.2.1993, his basic pay was revised from 1650/- to Rs.1760/-. He thereafter passed the B.Sc. Nursing on 11.3.1993 and thus became entitled to receive two advance grade increments. However, while giving him benefit of two advance grade increments of Rs.60/- each, he was fixed at Rs.1880/- on 11.3.1993.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Satish Chandra was junior to the petitioner having joined service at later point of time than him and he started getting the salary of Rs.1880/- on 11.3.1993 whereas the salary of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.1880/- belatedly, six months thereafter on 1.9.1993. It happened because of the fact that date of increment of both of them fell on different dates and due to this fact, Satish Chandra Sharma in spite of being junior to the petitioner started getting higher scale than the petitioner. The Tribunal however rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that in view of Rule 14 (2)(b)(iii) of the Revised Pay Scale Rules of 1998, Satish Chandra Sharma was drawing more pay than the petitioner due to grant of higher initial pay or advanced increment(s) under Rule 13. It was argued that the aforesaid Rule has been misinterpreted by the Tribunal because Rule presupposes that the junior government servant draws pay more than his senior due to grant of higher initial pay or advance increment(s) in terms of Rule 13, whereas the senior was not getting advance grade. In the present case, the petitioner has also received the two advance increments before Shri Satish Chandra Sharma. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. P. Jagdish & Ors. (1997) 3 SCC 176. It was therefore prayed that the judgment of the learned Tribunal be quashed and set aside.;