Pay Parity Upheld: Senior Employee to Match Junior's Pay. Relief Granted in Appeals

The appeals arose from High Court orders related to a Civil Writ Petition seeking pay fixation benefits. The appellants sought to match their pay with that of their junior employee. The High Court initially dismissed the petition as infructuous. Subsequent review petitions were dismissed, and a modification application was also rejected. The appeals argued for relief for both appellants based on pay parity. The court held that the senior employee could not be paid less than the junior and directed pay parity benefits for both appellants. The High Court's judgment was set aside, and relief was granted to both appellants.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against orders of High Court regarding pay fixation and relief claimed in writ petition.

Summary:
The judgment pertains to three appeals arising from orders of the High Court regarding a Civil Writ Petition. The appellants sought relief for quashing an order withdrawing pay fixation benefits and stepping up their pay to match that of their junior employee. The High Court initially disposed of the writ petition as infructuous based on the respondent's statement that relief had been granted. Subsequently, review petitions were dismissed on the grounds of relief not being claimed for one of the appellants. A miscellaneous application for modification was also dismissed. The appeals were filed against these orders.

In the appeal, it was argued that both appellants should have been considered for relief as they were in a similar situation of receiving lower pay than their junior. The High Court's reliance on the respondent's statement in dismissing the petition for one appellant was contested. It was highlighted that the writ petition clearly indicated the common case of both appellants for pay parity with their junior. The appellant No. 1 was also entitled to relief as prayed for the appellant No. 2.

The respondent contended that the appellant No. 1 had already been granted promotional benefits with lower increments, leading to the pay disparity. However, the court found this reasoning contrary to the principle that a senior employee cannot be paid less than a junior. It was held that the pay scale of the appellant No. 1 should be brought at par with his junior, similar to the relief granted to the appellant No. 2.

The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and directing the respondents to extend pay parity benefits to the appellant No. 1 as well. The writ petition was allowed accordingly, with no order as to costs.

---