JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a to the opposite parties to step up his scale of pay to that pf his, junior from the date his junior has been granted the higher scale of pay and for payment of differential dues, 2. Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed the erstwhile Orissa State Electricity Board as an L.D. Clerk/CIerk-B vide order dated 2-7-71 and joined in the post on 7-7-71 in Ganjam South Electrical Division, While continuing as such, the O.S.E.B, was taken over By the Grid Corporation of Orissa and the petitioner became an employee of the Corporation. After completion of 15 years of service in the cadre, on 6-7-86 the petitioner was granted time bound advancement scale of pay with effect from 7-7-86 and was granted next annual increment with effect from 7-7-87. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Clerk-A in which he is continuing till date. Time bound advancement scale of pay was allowed to the petitioner vide Office Orders dated 7-6-94 and 25-6-94. After receipt of the annual increment the petitioner found that he was getting less pay than his immediate juniors are drawing. After the petitioner came to know of the anomaly he approached the authorities which yielded no result.; On 20-3-97 he represented to opposite party No. 2 highlighting the anomaly that had occurred in the scale of pay and prayed for anti-dating .his annual increment to that of his junior, namely, P. Parmananda working as Clerk-A in the office of Ganjam North Electrical Division, Berhampur. The said representation was forwarded to the Director (H.R.D.), Head Office, 'for consideration. In May, 1998 the petitioner came to know that his representation has been rejected. The grievance of the petitioner is that he joined on 7-7-71, whereas P. Paramanand joined on 8-7-71 and as such is junior to the petitioner. While calculating the annual increment on completion of 15 years of service in the time bound advancement scale of pay, the opposite parties calculated 15 years from 7-7-72 in case of petitioner, instead of 7-7-71, whereas in case of P. Paramananda 15 years was calculated from 10-7-71 which resulted in disparity in the scale of pay. In view of the aforesaid disparity and in view of rejection of the representation, the petitioner has approached this Court in this writ application. 3. In view of the aforesaid disparity and in view of rejection of the representation, the petitioner has approached this Court in this writ application. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite parties 2 to 4. It is stated in the counter that the annual increment of the petitioner in the post of Clerk-B fell due from 7-7-1972. So far as P. Paramananda is concerned he had taken extraordinary leave for two days, i.e. on 21-5-72 and 22-5-72 and therefore, his annual increment shifted from 8th of July each year to 10th of July each year from the year 1972, The two dates on which extraordinary leave was granted to P. Paramananda were treated as without pay. The petitioner was allowed to come over to time bound advancement pay scale with effect from 7-7-86 and was taken over to the next higher scale, that is the scale meant for Clerk-A, Rs. 1000-1910/-, and accordingly his pay was fixed at Rs. 1380/- on 7-7-86 and he has been allowed the next increment from 7-7-87 onwards, P. Paramananda came over to the scale attached to Clerk-A with effect from 8-7-86 as he completed 15 years on the said date, having entered service on 8-7-71. Accordingly his pay was fixed at Rs. 1380/-. But so far as P. Paramananda is concerned, his next increment fell due on 10-7-86 and accordingly he was. immediately granted the increment and reached the pay scale of Rs. 1420/- which the petitioner reached on 7-7-87 after completion of one year as his date of increment fell due on that day. 4. There is no dispute that P. Paramananda is junior to the petitioner in the grade of Clerk-B as well as in the grade of Clerk-A. There is no dispute that the petitioner was allowed the time bound advancement scale of pay in the post of Clerk-A with effect from 7-7-86, whereas P. Paramananda was allowed the same scale of pay on completion of 15 years of service with effect from 8-7-86. Because P. Paramananda had taken two days of extraordinary leave, his annual increment had shifted from 8th July of each year to 10th July of each year and accordingly after the pay fixation was allowed in the scale admissible to Clerk-A on 8-7-86 his next increment fell due on 10-7-1986. Because P. Paramananda had taken two days of extraordinary leave, his annual increment had shifted from 8th July of each year to 10th July of each year and accordingly after the pay fixation was allowed in the scale admissible to Clerk-A on 8-7-86 his next increment fell due on 10-7-1986. It appears from the counter that P. Paramananda has been benefited by taking two days of extraordinary leave, whereas the petitioner who had not taken such extraordinary leave has been deprived of the increment prior to P. Paramananda, 5. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for petitioner on the decision reported in 1997 SCC (L & S) 701: Union of India and Ors. v. P. Jagdish and Ors. The facts before the Apex Court were that respondents therein were working as Senior Clerks and while so working they were promoted to the posts of Head Clerks. Under the orders of the competent authority 10 per cent of posts of Senior Clerks were identified to be posts involving arduous nature of work and the incumbents who were posted to those identified posts were getting special pay of Rs. 35/- per month. On account of restructuring of the cadre a large number of vacancies occurred in the category of Head Clerk. The respondents before the Apex Court who were not working against the identified posts of Senior Clerks were promoted as Head defies with effect from 1-1-84, i. e. the date from which there had been upgradation to posts of Head Clerks and necessarily while fixing the pay in the category of Head Clerks, the pay which they were drawing as Senior Clerks was taken into account. While the respondents were thus promoted to the post of Head Clerk, their juniors who were posted against identified posts of Senior Clerks and were getting special pay of Rs. 35/-, were also promoted as Head Clerks and so far as those Senior Clerks were concerned their pay along with special pay were taken into account while fixing the pay in the promoted post of Head Clerk. Consequently even though the respondents were promoted to the post of Head Clerk earlier, they were found to be getting less pay than their juniors who were promoted at Head Clerks later, but had been posted in the identified posts of Senior Clerks prior to their promotion and were getting special pay. Consequently even though the respondents were promoted to the post of Head Clerk earlier, they were found to be getting less pay than their juniors who were promoted at Head Clerks later, but had been posted in the identified posts of Senior Clerks prior to their promotion and were getting special pay. With this factual backdrop the Apex Court while declining respondents claim for refixation of their pay as Head Clerks on the notional basis that they were getting "the special pay as Senior Clerks, directed that the respondents were entitled to step up their pay to a figure equal to the pay of their juniors from the date such juniors were promoted as Head Clerks and got their pay fixed at a slab higher than the respondents. Applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court to the present case, it appears that admittedly the petitioner is senior to P. Paramananda in the post of Clerk-B as well as in the post of Clerk-A. The disparity in the pay has occurred because of shifting of the date of annual increment so far as P. Paramananda is concerned, for which the petitioner cannot be found fault with. The petitioner being senior to P. Paramananda, is entitled to the pay protection and accordingly his prayer should be allowed for stepping up of his pay. 6. I, therefore, allow the writ application and direct for stepping up of the pay of the petitioner and he should be allowed the same pay that has been allowed to P. Paramananda with effect from the date the latter was allowed. The differential pay should be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of six months. 7. Application allowed. Final Result : Allowed