1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs;
(a) Be pleased to admit this petition.
(b) Be pleased to quash and set aside the action of the respondent-Corporation in not removing the anomaly in the basic pay of the petitioner and not fixing the basic pay of the petitioner higher than his juniors, by issuing a writ of mandamus and / or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(c) Be pleased to direct the respondent-Corporation to suitably adjust the basic pay of the petitioner by adding an increment in the basic pay and by giving proper stepping up, by issuing a writ of mandamus and / or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(d) Be pleased to direct the respondent-Corporation to give the aforesaid benefit of increase in the basic pay from the date on which his junior started drawing higher basic pay, by issuing a writ of mandamus and / or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(e) & (f) .......
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant in respondent-Corporation in the year 1963. In pursuance of the Circular dated 16.08.1991 issued by the respondent revising the salaries of the employees of the respondent-Corporation, the pay-scale of the petitioner was revised to Rs.4600-6790 w.e.f. 01.01.1987.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that while revising his pay-scale, injustice has been done to him by the respondent-Corporation inasmuch as an employee junior to him has been granted more benefits than him. The petitioner made representation to the respondent-Corporation against the said pay anomaly. However, the same was not considered. Hence, this petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. It appears from the record that the case of the petitioner is not similar to that of the co-employee, B.G. Patel inasmuch as the said employee was given two promotional increments in the revised scale with higher incremental benefits. Moreover, the petitioner has also not disclosed the fact regarding personal pay drawn by him. Both the petitioner and said B.G. Patel, on becoming Manager, were drawing equal basic pay w.e.f. 08.08.1991. Therefore, I do not find anything on record from which it could be inferred that injustice has been done to the petitioner. Apart from that it is open to the petitioner to claim reversion, particularly, when he has enjoyed the promotional post for a considerable long period.
5. In view of the above, the petition, being devoid of any merits, is rejected. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
[K.S.JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/* Top