Judgment:
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.
1. The point that arises for decision in this case is whether on the junior getting grade promotion, can the senior claim the same pay as his junior, though the latter has not completed the required number of years for grade promotion. The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants. The first respondent herein was the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case are the following; The first respondent joined the service of the first appellant as Draftsman/Overseer/Surveyor Grade Ill/Tracer on 13.5.1985. He was promoted as Draftsman/Overseer/Surveyor Grade II with effect from 13.5.1987. Still later, he was promoted as Draftsman/Overseer/Surveyor Grade I with effect from 14.5.1988. One Smt. Suprabha, who joined the service of the first appellant as Draftsman/Overseer/Surveyor Grade II on 4.3.1988 and who was junior to the respondent, was promoted as Draftsman/Overseer/Surveyor Grade I on 4.3.1990. On completion of eight years in the said cadre, she became eligible for grade promotion in the scale of pay of Assistant Engineer. Since she opted to come over to the scale of Assistant Engineer on 1.11.1998, she was granted higher grade with effect from the said date. As a result of the grade promotion, she started drawing higher pay than the first respondent. The first respondent, therefore, filed a representation claiming stepping up of his pay equal to that of Smt. Suprabha. The competent authority of the first appellant considered the said claim and rejected it, by Ext.P2 communication dated 18.5.2002. Challenging that order, the Writ Petition was filed. The appellants filed a counter affidavit, stating that the first respondent/petitioner is not eligible for stepping up of his pay. They also produced Ext. R1 (a) reply, furnished to the first appellant by the Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit, for the clarification sought by them regarding the eligibility of the first respondent for stepping up of his pay.
3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, took the view that it is highly unjust to allow the situation of the first respondent/petitioner drawing lesser pay than his junior, Smt. Suprabha and quashed Ext.P2 and Ext.R1(a), even though there was no specific leading for quashing the latter order. The learned Single Judge also ordered to step up the pay of the first respondent/petitioner to the level of the pay drawn by his junior, Smt. Suprabha with effect from the date on which she started drawing higher pay.
4. We heard the learned Counsel on both sides. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the rules and orders governing fixation of pay do not permit stepping up of the pay of the first respondent to make it equal to that of his junior, who got grade promotion as Assistant Engineer. The learned Counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, submitted that in every respect the first respondent and Smt. Suprabha were on the same footing in Grade II and Grade I and the first respondent was also senior to Smt. Suprabha. Therefore, when the junior starts drawing higher pay, the first respondent is entitled to have his pay stepped up and therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is legal and valid. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel for the first respondent relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. P. Jagdish : (1997) 3 SCC 176 and also a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kamala Devi v. K.S.F.E. Ltd. 2002 (1) KLT 157.
5. The concept of junior-senior fixation finds statutory recognition in Rule 28 A of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules. Ruling No. 1 under it permits stepping up of the pay of the senior, who draws lesser pay than his junior. The said ruling reads as follows:
In cases where the application of the rule would give rise to anomalies in as much as an officer officiating in a higher post could get his pay refixed at a stage higher than the pay drawn by another who stands confirmed in the higher post on the same scale of pay, the anomaly will be removed by refixing the pay of the senior officer at the stage equal to that fixed for the junior officer in the higher post, the orders of refixation being issued by the Competent Authority under Rule 34, Part I, Kerala Service Rules. The refixation of pay in such cases will be made subject to the following conditions:
(a) Both the junior and senior officers should belong to the same cadre and the post in which they have been promoted or confirmed, as the case may be, should be identical and in the same cadre.
(b) The scale of pay of the lower post in which they would have drawn their pay but for their promotion or confirmation should be identical.
(c) The anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of Rule 28A, For example, if the junior officer draws from time to time a higher rate of pay than the senior by virtue of fixation of pay under the normal rules or any advance increment granted to him, the provision contained in this ruling should not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior officer.
(d) The refixation of pay of the senior officer should be done with effect from the date of refixation of pay of the junior officer. The next increment of the senior officer will however be drawn on the date on which it would have fallen due but for this refixation of pay.
By G.O.(P) No. 110/84/Fin dated 20.2.1984, further clarification has been issued. The said Government Order reads as follows:
In the Government Order read above, orders have been issued to the effect that the rules of fixation of pay as laid down in Rules 28A, Part I, Kerala Service Rules will not be applicable to cases of promotions/appointments made from posts carrying a scale of pay the minimum of which exceeds Rs. 1300. It is observed that consequent on the implementation of the above Government Order, certain officers promoted on or after 29.6.1983 are entitled to pay higher than that drawn by their Seniors who could not get the benefit of the Government Order having been promoted prior to 29.6.1983.
In order to remove the anomaly of Junior drawing higher pay than the Senior consequent on the implementation of the above orders, Government are pleased to order that in cases where a Junior happens to draw on promotion on or after 29.6.1983 pay higher than that drawn by his Senior who got promotion prior to 29.6.1983, solely on account of the implementation of the orders in the Government Order read above, the pay of such Senior in the post to which he has been promoted in the higher scale will be refixed at the same stage as that of the Junior with effect from the date of fixation of pay of the Junior subject to the following conditions:
i. Both the Junior and the Senior Officers should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted should be identical and in the same cadre.
ii. The scale of pay of the lower post should be identical.
iii. If the Junior Officer draws from time to time a higher rate of pay than the Senior in the lower post by virtue of fixation of pay under the normal rules or any advance increment granted to him, the benefit of stepping up the pay of the Senior Officer shall not be admissible.
Going by the above orders, we find that the case of the first respondent is not covered by them. Whenever pay revision orders are issued and anomaly of the junior drawing higher pay arises as a result of fixation of pay, specific provisions are made therein to rectify the said anomaly. In this case, the alleged anomaly did not arise as a result of implementation of pay revision.
6. It is well settled that there is no universal principle that the senior in a cadre must always draw higher pay than the junior. On valid grounds, it may so happen that the junior may draw higher pay than the senior. In this case, the junior, Smt. Suprabha completed eight years service in the post of Overseer Grade I. Therefore, she is entitled to get the scale of pay of the promotion post of Assistant Engineer. The time bound higher grade relevant in this case was the one contained in G.O.(P) No. 3000/98/Fin dated 25.11.1998. The relevant portion of the said Government Order dealing with higher grade reads as follows:
Promotion Prospects 5.(1)(a) Ratio/Percentage based higher grade.
The existing ratio/higher grade and the improved ratio to the various categories are indicated at the appropriate places under each Department. The newly introduced ratio/improved ratio promotion will have effect from the date of this order.
(b) Time bound higher grade promotion scheme:
(1) The existing time bound higher grade promotion scheme and the grades to be assigned on revision of pay scales under the scheme, will be modified as specified in the Table I and II given below (with effect from the date of order.)
(2) Employees who remain in their entry posts on scale of pay ranging from Rs. 2610-3680 to Rs. 4600-7125 will be granted three higher grades on completion of the period of qualifying service in their posts as follows with the scale of pay indicated in Table-I
(i) The first higher grade on completion of 10 years service in the entry post.
(ii) The second higher grade on completion of either 8 years of service in the first promoted post or a total service of 18 years in the entry post and the first regular promotion post/time bound higher grade together, whichever is earlier.
(iii) The third higher grade on completion of 23 years of total service in the entry post and the regular promotion post(s)/time bound higher grade(s) together.
(iv) A fourth time bound higher grade in the scale of Rs. 3350-5275 will be allowed to Class IV employees on completion of 30 years.
As per the above quoted time bound higher grade promotion scheme, Smt. Suprabha is entitled to get the scale of pay of Assistant Engineer with effect from 3.3.1998. But, she opted to come over to the scale with effect from 1.11.1998. If the claim of the first respondent is allowed, it will have the effect of granting him the higher grade of Assistant Engineer, even though he is ineligible for the same, in terms of the above quoted higher grade promotion scheme. In fact, in this case, the anomaly of the junior drawing higher pay did not arise out of fixation under Rule 28A of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules or by reason of fixation of pay pursuant to pay revision order. It was as a result of grant of higher grade to Smt. Suprabha on account of her completion of eight years' service. After 1.11.1998, Smt. Suprabha went to the scale of pay of Assistant Engineer, whereas the first respondent continued in the same scale of pay of Overseer Grade I. As a result, the disparity in pay arose. The same arises out of the scheme of time bound higher grade promotion. By pressing into service the abstract principle of equal pay for equal work arising from Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the first respondent cannot claim pay at the rate drawn by his junior. We cannot re-write the time bound higher grade promotion scheme by saying that whenever a junior gets grade promotion, the senior should also be given the higher grade to satisfy the principle of equality. The decisions relied on by the first respondent also do not have any application to the facts of the case.
In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is reversed and the Original Petition is dismissed.