JUDGMENT A.N. VARMA, J. 1. THE petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in refusing to fix his pension on the basis of the pay of Rs. 560/- per month which he was drawing at the time of his retirement, i.e. on June 30, 1976. 2. THE relevant facts are that the petitioner was appointed as a guard in the respondent railways in Grade 'C' on September 28, 1943. One Som Nath and B. P. Chaturvedi were also appointed guards in grade 'C' but subsequently in the year 1945. On September 5, 1959, the petitioner was promoted to the post guard in grade 'B' and ultimately on November 18, 1972 the petitioner was promoted to the next higher grade, namely, grade 'A'. Som Nath and B. P. Chaturvedi, on the other hand, were promoted to grade 'B' on December 27, 1964 and grade 'A' on January 2, 1975. Under a Railway Board's circular dated 1 March 19, 1966, a provision was made for stepping up the pay of senior employees to the pay which persons junior to them became entitled to draw upon their promotion to the higher post. This was done in order to remove the anamoly which had arisen on account of the fact that at the time of the promotion of junior employees to the higher posts their pay scales had gone up. With a view to removing this anamoly, the Railway Board issued the aforesaid circular which provided as follows:- "In order to remove this anomaly the President is pleased to decide that in such cases the pay of the senior employee in the higher post should be stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for the junior employee in that higher post. The stepping up should be done with effect from the date of promotion or appointment of the junior employee and will be subject to the following conditions". 3. IT is not necessary to lay down the conditions mentioned therein as it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner became disentitled to the aforesaid benefit on account of any exception provided under the conditions laid down therein. 3. IT is not necessary to lay down the conditions mentioned therein as it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner became disentitled to the aforesaid benefit on account of any exception provided under the conditions laid down therein. IT is not disputed that upon the promotion of Som Nath and B.P. Chaturvedi to the higher grades on the dates mentioned above both these persons became entitled to receive higher pay than the petitioner in virtue of the revision in the pay scales which became applicable by the time their promotions were made. Applying the Railway Board's circular the petitioner's pay was stepped up on December 27, 1964 in grade 'B' to the level of pay of Som Nath and B. P. Chaturvedi and again on the promotion of these two persons to grade 'A' the petitioner's pay was again stepped up and was fixed at Rs. 560/-. 4. WHEN the petitioner applied for fixation of his pension upon his retirement, the respondents fixed the pay of the petitioner for the purpose of determination of his pension at the time of his retirement at Rs. 530/- on the premise that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid Railway Board's circular. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents have misinterpreted and misunderstood the scope of the aforesaid circular and that on a true and proper construction of the same the petitioner's pension ought to have been fixed treating the salary of the petitioner on the date of retirement at Rs. 560/-. In the counter affidavit which has been filed in this case on behalf of the respondents, the stand taken is that Som Nath and B. P. Chaturvedi both were drawing higher pay in grade 'C' than the petitioner on April 1, 1961, the date with effect from which the aforesaid Railway Board's circular became applicable and consequently the petitioner could not be allowed the benefit of the same. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the opinion that the contention of the petitioner is well founded. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been shown in the chart given in paragraph 5 that on April 1, 1961 whereas the petitioner was getting Rs. 166/- B. P. Chaturvedi and Som Nath were drawing on that date Rs. 170/-per month. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been shown in the chart given in paragraph 5 that on April 1, 1961 whereas the petitioner was getting Rs. 166/- B. P. Chaturvedi and Som Nath were drawing on that date Rs. 170/-per month. It is on this basis that the respondents have refused the relief to the petitioner. 5. WE are clearly of the opinion that comparing the salary of the petitioner with that of B. P. Chaturvedi and Som Nath on April 1, 1961 was entirely misconceived for on April 1, 1961 the petitioner was no longer in grade 'C'. He had, by that time, been promoted to grade 'B' whereas Som Nath and B. P. Chaturvedi both continued to be in grade 'C' on that date. In the counter affidavit no attempt has been made to indicate what were the salaries of Som Nath and B. P. Chaturvedi on the date immediately preceding September 5, 1959, the date on which the pittioner was promoted to grade 'B' but deducting three increments of Rs. 5/- each from the pay of Som Nath and B. P. Chaturvedi as on 1-4-1961 it would appear that both were drawing the same salary as the petitioner on the relevant date, i.e., the date immediately preceding September 5, 1959. 6. IT is thus apparent that the whole premises on which the petitioner has been deprived of the benefit of the Railway Board's circular is entirely wrong. Som Nath and B. P. Chaturvedi were not drawing higher salary than the petitioner in grade 'C at any point of time. Assuming that in grade C Som Nath and B. P. Chaturvedi were drawing higher salary than the petitioner before September 5, 1959 even so the petitioner could not be deprived of the benefit of the Railway Board's circular. Som Nath and B. P. Chaturvedi were not drawing higher salary than the petitioner in grade 'C at any point of time. Assuming that in grade C Som Nath and B. P. Chaturvedi were drawing higher salary than the petitioner before September 5, 1959 even so the petitioner could not be deprived of the benefit of the Railway Board's circular. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of P. C. Lal v. The Chief Justice, High Court Allahabad reported in 1975 Allahabad Weekly Cases 613 in which an identical provision came up for interpretation, Clause (c) (Kha) of the relevant Government order which was the subject matter of interpretation ran as follows:- "If on the date of publication of Fundamental Rule 22-B i.e. November 8, 1966, or thereafter the pay of a Government Servant promoted or appointed to a higher post exceeds the pay drawn by a person, who might have been appointed to another similar post in the same cadre before him and is junior to him then pay of the Senior Officers on the higher post should also be raised to that amount which is being drawn by the Junior employee on that post. Thus increase shall come into effect from the date of promotion of the junior employee subject to the following conditions:- (1)......... (2)......... (3) The anomaly (unevenness) must have arisen as a result of the application of the Fundamental Rule 22-B and not for any other reason. For instance if the junior employee has, on account of getting advance increment on his lower post received more pay from time to time than an employee who is senior to him, then the order given in this office memo should not be used in raising the pay of the senior employee. In such cases, orders for the re-fixation of senior employee shall be issued under Fundamental Rule 27 of Part II, Volume II of the Financial Hand Book. The next increment shall be given to senior employee only on his completing one year's service from the date of refixation of his pay." 7. In such cases, orders for the re-fixation of senior employee shall be issued under Fundamental Rule 27 of Part II, Volume II of the Financial Hand Book. The next increment shall be given to senior employee only on his completing one year's service from the date of refixation of his pay." 7. CONSTRUING the aforesaid provisions, the Bench observed that the immediate cause for the anomaly is the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Lower Division Assistant and the fixation of his initial pay in terms of Fundamental Rule 22-B. His initial salary while he was Routine Grade Assistant is absolutely irrelevant. The latter part of condition no. 3 is also not applicable because the petitioner has not been given a higher salary because of any advance increment 8. THE Division Bench held that on a true and proper construction of the relevant Government order quoted above, the salary which the junior employee was drawing in the lower grade was not relevant and that the main object of the Government order was to remove the anomaly arising from the fact that the junior employees promoted subsequently happened to draw a higher salary on account of increments in salary which became applicable by the time their promotions were made. Thus in either view the respondents were not right in denying to the petitioner the benefit of the aforesaid circular. The petitioner's pension ought to have been fixed treating the salary of the petitioner at Rs. 560/- on the date of his retirement and not Rs. 530/-. 9. IN the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated August 16, 1976 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) passed by the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, is quashed. The letter issued by the Divisional Superintendent's office on July 8, 1976 (annexure CA-4) is also quashed, for the same reason. The respondents are directed to re-determine the pension of the petitioner in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. The respondents shall also pay to the petitioner the arrears of pension which may be worked out on the basis of the pension which shall be re fixed in pursuance of this order, This shall be done expeditiously, if possible, within a period of three months from the date on which a certified copy of this order is presented by the petitioner to the appropriate authority. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs. 10. THE amount deducted from the petitioner's gratuity in pursuance of the impugned order shall also be refunded to the petitioner forthwith. Petition allowed.