Judgment:
ORDER
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.
1. The undisputed facts are:
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant on 6-10-1975 while one N. Manjunathan was appointed as an Assistant on 24-12-1975. Attached to the post was the pay scale of 512-20-60-1210. The petitioner as well as N. Manjunathan were promoted as Senior Assistants on 21-04-1981 and 18-05-1981, respectively, and paid salary of Rs. 750/- in the pay scale of 630-30-75-1405. As on 1.10.1981, the petitioner was extended an increment, in the post of Sr. Assistant, since he entered service in the month of October, and drew the pay of Rs. 780/- while N. Manjunathan drew Rs. 750/- on the same day as the entitlement to normal increment was in the month of December, the month in which he was appointed. Thereafter wards, the petitioner was promoted as an Assistant Accounts Officer with effect from 16-11-1981 in the pay scale of 780-50-75-1630 and paid Rs. 830/-, while N. Manjunathan too when promoted as an Assistant Accounts Officer with effect from 17-11-1981 with the very same pay scale, was also paid Rs. 830/-. However, N. Manjunathan was extended a normal increment on 1-12-1981 since his date of entry into service was 24-12-1975 and therefore drew salary of Rs. 880/-, but, the petitioner was extended an increment on 1-10-1982 and was paid Rs. 880/-, the starting point in the anomaly in the pay drawn by the petitioner and N. Manjunathan. The petitioner's efforts to set right the anomaly, by a request to step up the pay, was declined by order dated 30-05-2008 Annexure-'D'. Hence, this writ petition.
2. Indisputably, the petitioner though senior to N. Manjunathan, is paid a lesser salary, only because of entry into service in the month of October while his junior entered service during the month of December. In other words on being promoted as A.A.Q. on 17.11.1981, the petitioner was paid Rs. 830/-, without an increment while N. Manjunathan, when promoted on 17.11.1981, was paid Rs. 830/- but extended an increment of Rs. 50/- as on 1.12.1981, the cause for the discrepancy/anomaly in the pay.
3. The ratio laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Karnataka Electricity Board v. Venkatakrishna : ILR 1986 KAR 570, in the circumstances is apposite:
The guarantee of equal protection under Article 14 embraces the entire realm of 'State action' including the vagaries of the executive. Article 14 unlike other fundamental rights, is not so much a right to persons, but an unequivocal admonition administered to the State by the Constitution that it shall not discriminate persons belonging to the same class while conferring benefits or imposing liabilities on them. It is a command issued by the Constitution to the state as a matter of public policy with a view to implement its object of ensuring the equality of status and opportunity. In this way, it does, indeed strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It is the solemn duty of judges to see that the State does not endanger this equality of treatment commanded by the Constitution.
4. Thus when the petitioner's junior in the same cadre is paid a higher pay, while other things being common, is constitutionally Impermissible as it affects the rights of the petitioner - employee who has put in more time in the service of the organisation, than his junior. Hence the refusal on the part of the respondent to step up the pay of the petitioner, in the least, from 1-11-2005, to bring it on par with that of N. Manjunathan, by endorsement dated 30.5.2008 Annexure-'D' is discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal, calling for interference.
5. In the fact circumstances, a writ of mandamus shall ensue directing the respondents to step up the pay
of the petitioner on par with that of N. Manjunathan as on 1-11-2005 and pay the arrears within a fortnight from today.
Petition is ordered accordingly.