Bombay High Court
Ganpatrao Tulshiramji Irkhede ... vs Central Administrative ... on 13 October, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil Laxman Pansare
1/5 302-WP 1635.2018 +2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1635 OF 2018
Prakash Janardhan Khobragade and others vs. Union of India and others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1633 OF 2018
Ganpatrao Tulshiramji Irkhede and others vs. Union of India and others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1634 OF 2018
Shrikant Motiram Dahikar and others vs. Union of India and others
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mohan Sudame, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. S.A.Choudhari, Advocate & Ms.Mugdha Chandurkar
Advocate for respondents.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL L. PANSARE,JJ.
DATE : 13/10/2022
The petitioners have retired as Senior
Accountants from the establishment of the Director of
Accounts (Postal) i.e. respondent No.4. The
contention of the petitioners is that though they were
senior to some other employees, who were junior to
them, who were granted benefits of Assured Career
Progression (A.C.P.) Scheme twice and resultantly
KOLHE
2/5 302-WP 1635.2018 +2
they draw more salary than the petitioners, which is
not consistent with settled principles of law.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that it is the well settled principle of service
jurisprudence that salary of a senior employee cannot
be lesser than that of his junior employee and in case,
for some reason, a junior employee's salary is hiked,
the senior employee's salary is also required to be
stepped up and this is the law laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of Commissioner and Secretary to
Government of Haryana and others vs. Ram Sarup
Ganda and others, 2006 (12) SCALE 440 and also
the case of Gurcharan Singh Grewal and another vs.
Punjab State Electricity Board and others, (2009) 3
SCC 94.
3. It is also the contention of the petitioners
that the Principal Bench of Central Administrative
Tribunal at New Delhi, while deciding this very issue
has held that a senior person though having received
three promotions, is entitled to stepping up of pay at
par with his junior, who was granted benefits under
A.C.P. Scheme by virtue of which who is receiving
higher pay than his senior.
KOLHE
3/5 302-WP 1635.2018 +2
4. It is further submitted by him that since
the petitioners are also postal employees having
retired from the position of Senior Accountants in the
Postal Department just as the senior postal employees
involved in the case before the Principal Bench of the
Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi, which
was the case of All India Postal Accounts Employees
Association vs. Union of India through its Secretary,
Department of Posts and others [O. A. No. 2124 of
2011, decided on 01/02/2013], are also entitled to
receive the same benefits of stepping up of the pay as
has been granted by the Principal Bench of the
Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi, in the
said case. He also submits that in the case of State
of Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and
others (2015) 1 SCC 347, the Apex Court has
declared that the normal rule to be applied in cases
where similarity of facts is found is that of treating all
the petitioners equally and at par.
5. He further submits that the principle of
parity, as held by the Apex Court in State of U. P. vs.
Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra), must be applied in
service matters more emphatically as the service
jurisprudence evolved by the Supreme Court from
time to time postulates that all similarly situated
KOLHE
4/5 302-WP 1635.2018 +2
persons should be treated similarly or otherwise the
unequal treatment would result in violation of Article
14 of the Constitution of India.
6. Mr. Choudhari, learned counsel for the
respondents points out from the judgment rendered
in the case of Union of India vs. M. V. Mohan Nair
(2020) 5 SCC 421 that the very issue of entitlement
of seniors to be granted benefit of stepping up of their
pay on the ground that juniors are getting higher
salary, is now pending for consideration of the Apex
Court.
7. Considering the fact that the issue
involved in these petitions though appears to have
been finally settled, in the case of All India Postal
Accounts Employees Association vs. Union of India
(supra), the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench at New Delhi, which judgment has
attained finality on account of dismissal of the Special
Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.4952 of 2014 by the Apex
Court challenging this very judgment, which was
confirmed by the Delhi High Court, we find that it
will be proper for this Court to await the decision of
the Apex Court as indicated in its latest judgment in
Union of India vs. M. V. Mohan Nair (supra).
KOLHE
5/5 302-WP 1635.2018 +2
8. Final hearing of these petitions is therefore
adjourned sine die. However, leave is granted to the
petitioners to seek early circulation, if there is any
subsequent development.
( ANIL L. PANSARE J. ) ( SUNIL B. SHUKRE J. )
Digitally signed byRAVIKANT
CHANDRAKANT KOLHE
Signing Date:14.10.2022
16:24
KOLHE
