Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Dayashanker Dashrat Chaubey, was a Phone Inspector in the Department of Telecommunication who entered service on 16th October 1976. He appeared for a competitive examination for promotion to Junior Engineer (later redesignated as Junior Telecom Officer). In 1983, he was deputed for training in the category of graduates and was posted as Junior Engineer w.e.f. 24th March 1987. One Shri S. R. Dussane, who was junior in rank and from the 1984 batch, was appointed earlier on 21st May 1986. After a pay revision in 1996, Shri Dussane's pay was increased. The petitioner made representations for a deeming date of promotion or stepping up of his pay to equal that of his junior, but his requests were rejected. He filed Original Application No. 203 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, which dismissed his application. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition. The court heard both sides. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was wrongly denied the benefit of stepping up of pay, as he was not deputed for departmental training in time, causing delay in his posting as Junior Engineer. The respondents contended that the junior's earlier promotion was due to his own merit and training schedule, and there was no arbitrariness. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to stepping up of pay because the junior's higher pay was due to his earlier promotion, not any arbitrary action. The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Stepping Up of Pay - Equal Pay for Equal Work - The petitioner, a senior employee, sought stepping up of pay to match his junior who was promoted earlier due to earlier training. The court held that mere seniority does not entitle an employee to stepping up of pay when the junior's higher pay is due to earlier promotion and not any arbitrary action by the department. The principle of equal pay for equal work applies only when employees are similarly situated in all respects. (Paras 1-4) B) Service Law - Promotion - Training - Delay in Deputation - The petitioner claimed that he was not deputed for training in time, causing delay in his promotion. However, the court found no evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides in the department's actions. The junior's earlier promotion was due to his own merit and training schedule. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, a senior employee, is entitled to stepping up of his pay to match that of his junior who was promoted earlier due to different training schedules.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's order and denying the petitioner's claim for stepping up of pay.
Law Points
- Stepping up of pay
- Equal pay for equal work
- Seniority and promotion
- Departmental training
- Pay revision
