SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. - (1.) The petitioner by way of this writ petition prays for stepping of his salary equivalent to that of one Ramkishore Maheshwari as it his contention that Ramkishore Maheshwari who is admittedly junior to the petitioner as a Lecturer, was receiving higher pay. The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') while deciding his appeal No.371/1998 passed an order on 18.06.1999 directing to steeping up his pay and sort out pay anomaly which has occurred in the year 1993. However the order was not implemented, the petitioner preferred contempt petition before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has thereafter called for the record and at that stage the respondents passed an order on 12.02.2002 mentioning that the Director had earlier passed an order on 19.01.2001 disposing of the issue by holding that Ramkishore Maheshwari had been wrongfully given benefit of selection scale increment twice while granting him selection scale of 15 years of service and therefore an order was passed for withdrawing the said increment granted to Ramkishore Maheshwari by passing an order on 17.01.2001 accordingly, the director on 12.02.2002 had passed an order stating that the pay anomaly has only occurred because Ramkishore Maheshwari had got an additional increment on having passed M.Ed qualification on 15.05.1993. The contempt proceedings were dropped. Aggrieved of the order dated 12.02.2002 the present writ petition was amended and the same was also challenged. When the matter came up earlier before this Court record was called to assess as to how the respondents had allowed Ramkishore Maheshwari to draw higher pay scale as it was contended by the learned counsel that the order dated 17.01.2001 was never implemented and there was no withdrawal of the selection scale granted to Ramkishore Maheshwari and he continued to draw higher pay than the petitioner. An additional affidavit has thereafter been filed now by the respondents and it has been stated that the joint legal remembrance of the department of Secondary Education Department instructed the DEO Jaipur I to examine the case of the petitioner vide order dated 31.08.2018 and the Accounts Officer has submitted his report as Annexure AA-1 wherein a comparative chart of the petitioner and Ramkishore Maheshwari has been prepared. Accordingly, it has been stated in the affidavit that prior to 01.09.1989 the petitioner was getting higher basic salary due to the M.Ed degree increment than the respondent No.5 and on 01.09.1989 also he was at a higher stage at Rs.2180 while on 01.09.1993 respondent was given benefit of one advance increment in lieu of M.Ed degree and his salary became one increment higher at Rs.2300/- while the petitioner placed at Rs.2450/-. Thus it is contended that the petitioner was always at a higher stage of pay than the respondent No.5 and no case of stepping up is made out. The Service Book relating to respondent No.5 Ramkishore Maheshwari as well as the service book of the petitioner was called upon. The contention of the petitioner is correct that in spite of the order having been passed on 17.01.2001 no revision was actually done and the respondent continued to draw higher pay till he retired in 2010. His pension was also fixed accordingly in the higher pay, however, after the record was called by this Court it appears that the concerned Authorities have awaken from their slumber and have now revised pay of the respondent No.5. Resultantly, his pension and retiral benefits have also been revised. Learned counsel submits that against the said action, the respondent No.5 is also preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and is pending and an interim order has also been passed.
(2.) A look at the service book of the petitioner on the other hand shows that he retired on 28.02.2009 and on that day he was drawing Rs.24,960/- in the grade pay of Rs.6000/- while the respondent No.5 was in the grade pay of Rs.5,400/- as on 01.07.2008 with total gross pay of Rs.28,050/- thus after the revision done by the respondents, it is noticed that the petitioner is drawing higher pay and salary and grade pay vis a vis the respondent No.5.
(3.) In view of the aforesaid position which has come on record no further case for stepping up of pay or pension is made out. Accordingly, no orders are required to be passed further or revision of the salary of the petitioner in comparative to that of the respondent. It goes without saying that the petitioner would be treated to draw higher salary than that of the respondent for all time.;