Avinash Chander vs Union Of India And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1694 j&K

                                                                   Sr. No.18

        HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT JAMMU
                                SWP No.2210/2010

Avinash Chander                                                .....Petitioner(s)

                      Through: Mrs. S. Kour, Sr. Advocate with
                               Ms Manpreet Kour, Advocate.


                 Vs

Union of India and ors.                                      ..... Respondent(s)

                      Through: Mr.Vishal Sharma, ASGI.

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE

                                   ORDER

1. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner is senior to

respondent No.6 and inspite of the same he has been discriminated

resulting into pay anomaly of the petitioner qua the said respondent. The

petitioner submits that the respondent No.6 is junior to the petitioner as

the respondent is appointee of 1979 whereas the petitioner is appointee of

1978. The representations made by the petitioner have not resulted into

removal of pay anomaly. The petitioner seeks removal of pay anomaly

and fixation of pay of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2000 at par with

respondent No.6 and also payment of arrears from the said date.

2. The objections to the petition have been filed wherein the main contention

raised is that the difference in the pay has arisen for the reason that the

date of increment of the petitioner and that of the respondent No.6 are

different. The petitioner, infact, did not opt for fixation of pay as was

required in terms of the Scheme introduced for the Central Government

Civilian Employees w.e.f. 09.08.1999. Of course, learned senior counsel

for the petitioner has contradicted the stand of the respondents that the

petitioner had not given option as mentioned in the objections.

3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon

decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Gurcharan Singh Grewal

and another Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others reported in

(2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 94 in order to support the contention that

the senior cannot be paid less than his junior if anomaly in pay of the

senior has arisen due to difference of incremental benefits.

4. Keeping in view the fact that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is

senior to respondent No.6 and the judgment of the Apex Court in

Gurcharan Singh Grewal's case (supra) the petitioner cannot by any

stretch of imagination denied atleast the pay benefits less than what

respondent No.6 was held entitled to. The plea taken by the official

respondents is specious one and has no merit.

5. The petition, therefore, succeeds. The respondents are directed to extend

the benefits of pay parity to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2000 as was done

in the case of respondent No.6 within a period of two months from the

date, copy of the order is made available to the competent authorities by

the petitioner. Disposed of as above.

                                                                              ( Puneet Gupta )
                                                                                Judge
              Jammu/16.12.2021
              Narinder

                                       Whether the order is speaking ?    Yes/No
                                       Whether the order is reportable?   Yes/No




NARINDER KUMAR SHARMA
2021.12.17 10:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document