Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 222 (KAR)

MADUSUDAN N. ANCHAN v. TRAFFIC MANAGER, MANGALORE

2002-03-19

H.L.DATTU

body2002
DATTU, J. ( 1 ) SINCE common questions of facts and law are involved in all these Writ Petitions, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed off by this common order. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS in these Writ Petitions question the legality or otherwise of the orders made by the respondent - New Mangalore port Trust (Port Trust for short) in No. 2/2/2001/tga/1 dated 21. 1. 2002. By the said order, the respondent Port Trust has re-fixed the pay of the petitioners in the post of Tally Clerks and has further directed for recovery of the excess amount paid to these petitioners on the basis of the said re-fixation. ( 3 ) PETITIONERS in W. P. Nos. 3222 to 3248/2002 were initially appointed in the Work Charge Establishment of the respondent New mangalore Port Trust. They were transferred and appointed as Tally clerks some time in the year 1980. That appointment was on adhoc basis and their services came to be regularised by an order dated 6. 12. 1991. Some of these petitioners are promoted to the post of asst. Traffic Inspectors and also as Traffic Inspectors. ( 4 ) ONE Sri Abdul Rauf, who was working in the Work Charge establishment of the respondent Port Trust was transferred and appointed as a Tally Clerk on 15. 4. 1983. His basic pay was fixed at rs. 549/=. His services also came to be regularised subsequently. According to these petitioners, Sri Abdul Rauf was junior to them. In support of this assertion, they have produced the seniority list of tally Clerks prepared and published by the respondent - New mangalore Port Trust. ( 5 ) PETITIONERS were also appointed by transfer from Work Charge establishment as Tally Clerks. However, their pay scales was lesser than the pay scale of Sri Abdul Rauf. Petitioners were of the view that their pay scale should be stepped up on par with the pay scale of Sri Abdul Rauf. Therefore, they had made a representation before the respondent Port Trust to step up their pay scales and to bring it on par with the pay scale of Sri Abdul Rauf. ( 6 ) BY an order made on 15. 5. Therefore, they had made a representation before the respondent Port Trust to step up their pay scales and to bring it on par with the pay scale of Sri Abdul Rauf. ( 6 ) BY an order made on 15. 5. 1987, the pay scales of some of these petitioners have been stepped up by the respondent Port Trust by issuing an official memorandum, and they have brought the pay scales of these petitioners on par with the pay scale of Sri Abdul rauf. By yet another order dated 7. 11. 1990, the remaining petitioners, who were not given the benefit under the earlier order were also extended the benefit of stepping up of pay to bring it on par with the pay scale of one Sri Jayaram Alva, who is also said to be junior to these petitioners. This benefit is given to the petitioners by the respondent Port Trust by invoking Rule 27 of the Fundamental Rules. ( 7 ) PETITIONERS in W. P. Nos. 8083-8084/2002, were working in the work Charge Establishment of the New Mangalore Port Trust, mangalore. They were transferred and appointed as Tally Clerks subsequently. On a request made by these petitioners, the respondent Port Trust has stepped up their pay scales to bring it on par with one Sri Kuni Kannan by an order dated 15. 9. 1983. By yet another order dated 9. 8. 1990, the respondent Port Trust by preponing the date of increments of these petitioners have re-fixed the pay scales to bring it on par with the pay scale of one Sri Abdul Rauf, who was transferred and appointed as Tally Clerk on 5. 4. 1983. ( 8 ) PETITIONERS in W. P. Nos. 3217-3221/2002 were initially working in the Work Charge Establishment of respondent Port Trust. They were also transferred and appointed as Tally Clerks by an order made by the respondent Port Trust on 12. 5. 1977. On a request made by these petitioners, there pay scales had also been stepped up by the respondent Port Trust by invoking Rule 27 of the Fundamental rules to bring it on par with the pay scales of one Sri Kuni Kannan and Sri Abdul Rauf, who are supposed to be their juniors working in the Work Charge Establishment of the respondent Port Trust. ( 9 ) ALL these petitioners were enjoying the benefit of re-fixation of their pay scales right from the date of issuance of the official memorandum dated 15. 5. 1987 till the date of the impugned order. ( 10 ) THE internal Auditors of the respondent Port Trust has taken exception to the re-fixation of pay scales made in the case of these petitioners by pre-ponement of increments. Therefore, they have requested the respondent Port Trust to rectify the mistake/anomaly in re-fixing the pay scale of these petitioners on par with the pay scale of Sri Abdul Rauf. The suggestion made by the internal Auditors is accepted by the Ministry of Surface Transport. Thereafter, the ministry has requested the respondent Port Trust to reconsider the issue and to re-fix the pay scales of the petitioners by rectifying the anomaly noticed by the internal Auditors of the respondent Port Trust. ( 11 ) PURSUANT to the request made by the Ministry of Surface transport, the respondent Port Trust through its Traffic Manager (Incharge) had issued a show cause notice dated 4. 12. 2001 to the petitioners interalia directing them to show cause why their pay scales should not be re-fixed and the excess amount paid should not be recovered and in that they have also directed them to file their objections, if any within a particular time frame. ( 12 ) AFTER receipt of the show cause notice, petitioners had filed their statement of objections taking up all such contentions which are available to them including some of the contentions raised in these Writ Petitions also. The nominee of the respondent Port Trust after considering the objections so filed, has passed the impugned order dated 21. 1. 2002, re-fixing the pay scales of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court. ( 13 ) SRI Ravivarma Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the re-fixation of the pay scales had been done by the respondent Port Trust by invoking Rule 27 of fundamental Rules and in accordance with the Central Government decision No. 8 framed under Rule 22-C of the Fundamental Rules. Therefore, the respondent Port Trust is not justified in re-fixing the pay scales of the petitioners by the impugned order dated 21. 1. 2002. Therefore, the respondent Port Trust is not justified in re-fixing the pay scales of the petitioners by the impugned order dated 21. 1. 2002. In support of that contention, learned Counsel invites my attention to the decision No. 8 of the Central Government framed under Rule 22-C of the Fundamental Rules. Secondly, the learned Counsel would contend that the benefit of re-fixation of the pay scales has been done by the respondent Port trust by issuing an appropriate order some time in the month of august, 1990 with retrospective date, namely 15. 4. 1983. At this length of time, respondent Port Trust is not justified in re-fixing the pay scales and further ordering recovery of so called excess amount paid to these petitioners. Therefore, the action of the respondent port Trust is arbitrary and illegal. Thirdly, the learned Counsel would contend that the impugned order is passed by the Traffic Manager ( incharge) of the respondent port Trust only on the directions issued by the Ministry of Surface transport. Therefore, the learned Counsel would contend that the show cause notice issued by the respondent Port Trust was a mere empty formality, since the Traffic Manager was bound to obey the directions issued by the Ministry of Surface Transport and therefore, the learned Counsel would contend that the action of the respondent port Trust is wholly arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Lastly, the learned Counsel would contend, that petitioners are eligible and entitled for equal pay for equal work since petitioners as well as Sri Abdul Rauf are all employees transferred and appointed from Work Charge Establishment to the post of Tally Clerks and since Sri Abdul Raufs basic pay is fixed at Rs. 549/-, the same treatment was given by the respondent Port Trust to the petitioners also. Therefore, the respondent Port Trust is not justified now in framing the impugned order dated 21. 1. 2002 in re-fixing the pay scales of the petitioners and also for recovery of the so called excess amount paid to these petitioners. 549/-, the same treatment was given by the respondent Port Trust to the petitioners also. Therefore, the respondent Port Trust is not justified now in framing the impugned order dated 21. 1. 2002 in re-fixing the pay scales of the petitioners and also for recovery of the so called excess amount paid to these petitioners. In support of these contentions, learned Counsel invites my attention to the observations made by a division Bench of this Court in the case of KARNATAKA electricity BOARD vs Y. V. VENKATAKRISHNA AND OTHERS1, the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of SAHIB ram vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS2, and the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of SHYAM BABU VERMA AND others vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS3. These are the only submissions canvassed by learned Counsel sri Ravivarma Kumar at the time of hearing of these Writ Petitions. ( 14 ) RESPONDENT Port Trust has filed its detailed statement of objections resisting the reliefs sought in these Writ Petitions. In that, it is stated, except petitioners 3, 16, 22 and 25, all the other petitioners had joined the services of the respondent Port Trust in the Work Charge Establishment as Workmates after the appointment of Sri Abdul Rauf as a Workmate on 6. 11. 1972. It further states that the pay of Sri Abdul Rauf in the grade of Workmate as on 19. 1. 1977 was Rs. 214/= and he was promoted as Work Assistant and in that post his pay was fixed at Rs. 260/- (pre-revised ). According to it, petitioners herein are juniors to Sri Abdul Rauf in the grade of workmate and none of the petitioners were drawing Rs. 214/= as on 19. 1. 1977 in the grade of Workmates. Secondly, it contends that the post of Workmate is the feeder cadre for the post of Work assistant, which is a promotional post. The post of Work Assistant is not a feeder cadre for the post of Tally Clerk, which is a post of appointment by transfer. According to it, Sri Abdul Rauf was promoted as Work Assistant on 20. 1. 1977 and petitioners 1,5,6,7,8,9,11,12,18 and 25 were promoted as Work Assistants subsequently. The post of Work Assistant is not a feeder cadre for the post of Tally Clerk, which is a post of appointment by transfer. According to it, Sri Abdul Rauf was promoted as Work Assistant on 20. 1. 1977 and petitioners 1,5,6,7,8,9,11,12,18 and 25 were promoted as Work Assistants subsequently. Further, it states that other petitioners never worked in the post of Work assistants and they were directly appointed to the post of Tally Clerks from the post of Workmates and therefore, petitioners were juniors to Sri Abdul Rauf in the cadre of Work Assistant also and their pay scales were less than Sri Abdul Rauf. ( 15 ) IT is the specific stand of the respondent Port Trust before this Court, that when Sri Abdul Rauf was transferred and appointed as Tally clerk in the month of April, 1983, he was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 521/= as Work Assistant and on his transfer and appointment as Tally Clerk, his pay was fixed at Rs. 549/= with the date of next increment as 1. 4. 1984. They further assert that the names of the petitioners were shown above the name of Sri Abdul rauf in the seniority list of Tally Clerks only on the basis of their dates of appointment to the post of Tally Clerks, however they were not seniors to him in the feeder cadre at any point of time. It further states that after considering the representation filed by the petitioners, it had stepped up the pay scales of these petitioners upto Rs. 549/ = with effect from 15. 4. 1983 with the next date of increment as 1. 4. 1984 to bring it on par with the pay scales fixed in the case of sri Abdul Rauf, Sri Jayarama Alva and Sri Kuni Kannan, by wrongly interpreting the decision of the Central Government No. 8 framed under Rule 22-C of the Fundamental Rules. Since that mistake was brought to its notice by the internal Auditors and when it was directed to reconsider the issue by the Central Government, it is stated, after issuing an appropriate show cause notice to the petitioners, the Traffic manager of the respondent Port Trust has passed the impugned order dated 21. 1. 2002. According to the respondent Port Trust, petitioners are not entitled to the stepping up of pay as has been done by them in the year 1990. 1. 2002. According to the respondent Port Trust, petitioners are not entitled to the stepping up of pay as has been done by them in the year 1990. ( 16 ) SRI Vasudeva Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Port Trust also relies upon the language employed in the Central Government decision No. 8 framed under Rule 22-C of the Fundamental Rules in support of his contention that petitioners were not eligible and entitled for the re-fixation of pay as has been done by them in the year 1990 and therefore, the respondent Port trust is justified in rectifying the mistake committed by it in the earlier pay fixation by framing the impugned order dated 21. 1. 2002. ( 17 ) THE question that requires to be considered and decided by this Court is:- whether the respondent Port Trust is justified in re-fixing the pay scale of the petitioners and thereafter asking them to refund the excess amount paid to them in the earlier re-fixation of their basic pay? 1. 1986 (1) KLJ 276 2. 1995 Supp. SCC 18 3. (1994) 2 SCC 521 ( 18 ) IN order to answer this issue, firstly I should notice the Central government decision No. 8 framed under Rule 22-C of the fundamental Rules. Therefore the same is extracted and it is as under: (8) Removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay of Senior on promotion drawing less pay than his junior:- (a) As a result of application of F. R. 22-C:- In order to remove the anomaly of a government servant promoted or appointed to a higher post on or after 1. 4. 1961, drawing a lower rate of pay in that post than another Government servant junior to him in the lower grade and promoted or appointed subsequently to another identical post, it has been decided that in such cases the pay of the senior officer in the higher post should be stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for the junior officer in that higher post. The stepping up should be done with effect from the date of promotion or appointment of the junior officer and will be subject to the following conditions, namely:- (A) Both the junior and senior officers should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical and in the same cadre; (b) The scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical; (c) The anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of F. R. 22 -C. For example, if even in the lower post the junior officer draws from time to time a higher rate of pay than the senior by virtue of grant of advance increments, the above provisions will not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior officer. ( 19 ) THE salient features of the aforesaid decision of the Central government is as under: the subject matter of this decision is with regard to removal of anomaly in the pay scales of Government Servants promoted or appointed to a higher post on or after 1. 4. 1961, drawing a lower pay scale in the appointed or promoted post than that of his junior in the same cadre. The Government decision says that in such cases, the pay of the senior should be stepped up to bring it on par with the junior working in that higher post, provided the Government servant satisfies the following conditions, namely, the junior and senior officer should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted should be identical and in the same cadre. Secondly, the scales of pay of lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical. The exception to the decision is also provided, wherein it is stated that if in the lower post the junior officer draws a higher rate of pay than the senior by virtue of grant of advance increments, then the decision no. 8 will not be invoked to step up to pay of the senior officer. The exception to the decision is also provided, wherein it is stated that if in the lower post the junior officer draws a higher rate of pay than the senior by virtue of grant of advance increments, then the decision no. 8 will not be invoked to step up to pay of the senior officer. ( 20 ) THE respondent Port Trust by its earlier order while refixing the pay scales of the petitioners had pre-poned the date of increment in respect of Tally Clerks, who are seniors to Sri Abdul Rauf to April every year as against October. The order made by the Port Trust in that regard is as under: ORDER sub: Preponing the date of increment in respect of Tally Clerks who are seniors to Sri Abdul Rauf, TC, to April every year as against October w. e. f. 15. 4. 1983 - regarding. Ref: 1) Letter No. KPW/gc/90 dated 30. 4. 1990 of Kanara port Workers Union (INTUC) 2) Letter No. SA/tra/1/90-91 dated 19. 4. 1990 of Gen. Secy. , nmpt Staff Association (HMS) 3) O. M. No. 2/10/90/tga. 1 dated 5. 6. 90 of TM, NMPT. . . . . . . . . With reference to the above mentioned subject, the pay in respect of the following Tally Clerks are stepped up to the level of their immediate junior to Rs. 549/= in accordance with the provisions of FR-27 in the scale of Rs. 425-12-437-EB-14-549- eb-16-741 w. e. f. 15-483 A. N. i. e. the date of appointment on transfer of Shri Abdul Rauf, Work Asst. as TC, whose pay has also been fixed at Rs. 549/- p. m. w. e. f. the said date under normal rules. The next date of increment of the following TCs will fall due w. e. f 1. 4. 1984 i. e. the date of increment of their junior Sri abdul Rauf. TC. The proposal has been seen and concurred in by FA and cao vide FCNo. 4291 dated 12. 7. 1990. S/shri 1. G. Mohammed. 2. Puttu Gowda 3. D. Krishna Murthy 4. E. Shamba Namboodiri 5. U. Sooryanarayana Bhat 6. Neelappa Poojary 7. John F. Montairo 8. M. Shridhara 9. B. Shantharama 10. C. Sooryanarayana sd/- secretary I/c new Mangalore Port trust, panambur. 7. 1990. S/shri 1. G. Mohammed. 2. Puttu Gowda 3. D. Krishna Murthy 4. E. Shamba Namboodiri 5. U. Sooryanarayana Bhat 6. Neelappa Poojary 7. John F. Montairo 8. M. Shridhara 9. B. Shantharama 10. C. Sooryanarayana sd/- secretary I/c new Mangalore Port trust, panambur. ( 21 ) PETITIONERS for nearly a decade were enjoying the benefit of re-fixation of their scales by stepping up the same to bring it on par with their so called juniors. Some time in the year 1990, the office of the Accountant General which audits the accounts of the Port trust, raised an objection for having stepped up the pay of Tally clerks on par with Sri Abdul Rauf by pointing out the FR 22 did not apply to such cases and the stepping up of pay of Tally clerks to the level of Sri Abdul Rauf was contrary to the Government of India decision No. 8 framed under Fundamental Rule 22-C, and the same requires to be rectified. After a prolonged correspondence between the Port Trust, the Accountant Generals Office and the Ministry of surface Transport, the Ministry did not agree with the suggestion made by the Port Trust and by their letter dated 20th November 1997, requested the Port Trust to re-examine the issue afresh with regard to the objections raised by Accountant Generals office in stepping up of pay scales of the Tally Clerks. The letter of Ministry of Surface Transport is as under: No. LB-12012/4/97-RO date: 20th Nov. 1997. The Chairman new Mangalore Port Trust panambur mangalore- 575010. Subject: Draft Note on excess payment of pay and allowances of about Rs. 3. 75/- lakhs to certain Tally Clerks due to stepping up of their pay in NMPT.- - - - - - sir, please refer to your letter No. 2/2/95-TCA. 1 dated 5. 7. 1997 on the above subject. 2. The matter has been examined here in consultation with the Finance Wing of this Ministry. It is difficult to accept up - gradation of the pay in this case, as it would set a wrong precedent. It is, therefore, requested that the issue may be reexamined in your Port and further justification for removal of the above audit objection may please be intimated to us immediately. Yours faithfully, sd/- (JAGDISH ANAND) director. It is difficult to accept up - gradation of the pay in this case, as it would set a wrong precedent. It is, therefore, requested that the issue may be reexamined in your Port and further justification for removal of the above audit objection may please be intimated to us immediately. Yours faithfully, sd/- (JAGDISH ANAND) director. ( 22 ) THE respondent Port Trust in view of the aforesaid development had issued a show cause notice to the petitioners dated 4. 12. 2001 pointing out the erroneous stepping up of their pay by pre-poning the date of increment and further called upon the petitioners to show cause why their pay should not be re-fixed and the excess amount paid should not be directed to be recovered. After receipt of the show cause notice, petitioners had filed their detailed reply and in that they had justified the action of the respondent Port Trust in re-fixing their pay scales to bring it on par with that of their juniors and further requested the respondent Port trust to drop the contemplated action noticed in the show cause notice. ( 23 ) THE respondent Port Trust after considering the objections filed by the petitioners has passed the impugned order re-fixing the pay scales of the petitioners and further directed for recovery of the excess salary paid on re-fixation of their pay scales by stepping up of pay by pre-poning the date of annual increment. The order made by the Port Trust is as under: NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST traffic Department, panambur-575010 no: 2/2/2001/tga. 1 date 21. 1. 2002 order sub: Traffic Department - Erroneous stepping up of the pay/ preponement of the date of annual increment of certain Tally clerks -Re-fixation of pay and allowances - Orders issued. Ref: 1. D. O. No. 8/18/2000 dated 4. 1. 2001 of Secretary, NMPT. 2. Show-cause notice No. 2/2/2001/tga. 1 dated 4. 12. 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . WHEREAS, stepping up of pay/preponement of date of annual increment was allowed to Shri Madhusudhan Anchan Vide Order no: 26/6/90-PLA 4 dated 7. 11. 1990 on the basis of the pay drawn by Sri Abdul Rauf as Tally Clerk and the date of his annual increment in the grade under the provisions of F. R. 27 and accordingly the pay of the said Shri Madhusudhan Anchan was fixed at Rs. 11. 1990 on the basis of the pay drawn by Sri Abdul Rauf as Tally Clerk and the date of his annual increment in the grade under the provisions of F. R. 27 and accordingly the pay of the said Shri Madhusudhan Anchan was fixed at Rs. 549 in the pay scale of Rs. 425-12-437-EB-14-549- eb-16-741 w. e. f. 15. 4. 1983 with the date of annual increment on 1. 4. 1984. AND WHEREAS, the said stepping up of pay/ preponement of date of annual increment was held as erroneous by the Accountant General, Karnataka and the Government of india, Ministry of Shipping on the ground that Sri Abdul Rauf was not junior to the said Sri Madhusudhan Anchan in the grade of Workmate and accordingly directed the Port Trust to re-fix the pay/date of annual increment and recover the amount of pay and allowances paid on this account. WHEREAS, a notice was issued vide No. 2/2/2001/tga. 1 dated 4. 12. 2001 calling upon the said Sri Madhusudhan Anchan to show cause as to why his pay should not be re-fixed as shown in the said notice for the reasons stated therein within 7 days of the receipt of the said notice and also why the excess pay and allowances drawn by the said Sri Madhusudhan Anchan as a result of erroneous stepping up of pay w. e. f. April, 1983 shall not be recovered from his known source of income/salary bill etc. to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice. AND whereas, the said Sri Madhusudhan Anchan in his representation dated 11. 12. 2001 has furnished the reasons against the proposed re-fixation of pay/preponement of date of annual increment and consequential recovery of the amount of pay and allowances paid in excess. The undersigned, after careful consideration of the representation/reply submitted by Sri madhusudhan Anchan to the aforesaid show cause notice, has found that the said Sri Madhusudhan Anchan has failed to show the provisions of rule/law under which he is entitled to claim the stepping up of pay/preponement of date of annual increment. In the absence of any provision under the law/rule for the aforesaid stepping up of pay/preponement of date of annual increment, the undersigned hereby reject the representation /reply furnished by the said Sri Madhusudhan Anchan and accordingly pass the following orders. In the absence of any provision under the law/rule for the aforesaid stepping up of pay/preponement of date of annual increment, the undersigned hereby reject the representation /reply furnished by the said Sri Madhusudhan Anchan and accordingly pass the following orders. That the pay of Sri Madhusudhan Anchan, now ATI is refixed as under; sl. Date of next Promotion no. Month Basic Pay increment Date 1. 11/82 521 11/83 2. 01/84 Pay fixation 830 11/84 3. 01/88 Pay fixation 1485 11/88 4. 01/93 pay fixation 3020 11/93 5. 11/93 3095 11/94 6. 12/97 3535 12/98 30. 12. 97- a. T. I. 7. 01/98 Pay fixation 6850 12/98 8. 12/01 7650 and the excess amount drawn by him as a result of above erroneous stepping up/preponement of his date of annual increment w. e. f. April 1983 will be recovered from him with immediate effect. Sd/- traffic MANAGER. ( 24 ) NOW coming back to the issue on hand, based on the report submitted by the New Mangalore Port Trust, the Ministry of surface transport by its letter dated 9. 4. 1987 had approved the stepping group of pay of some of the Tally Clerks to bring it on par with Sri abdul Rauf, who was transferred and appointed as Tally Clerk on 15. 4. 1983 and his basic pay had been fixed at Rs. 549/-, which was higher than the pay of the other Tally Clerks, who were promoted much earlier to Sri Abdul Raufs promotion as Tally Clerk, without noticing the fact that Sri Abdul Rauf had joined the service of the respondent Port Trust on 6. 11. 1972 as a Workmate, which is the feeder post for the post of Work Assistant. ( 25 ) BEFORE answering the legal issues canvassed by the learned counsels for the parties, let me remind myself the parameters of judicial review in fixation and re-fixation of pay scales of the employees by the employers. 11. 1972 as a Workmate, which is the feeder post for the post of Work Assistant. ( 25 ) BEFORE answering the legal issues canvassed by the learned counsels for the parties, let me remind myself the parameters of judicial review in fixation and re-fixation of pay scales of the employees by the employers. The settled position of law seems to be that if the fixation or refixation of pay scales of an employee is not in accordance with the rules or administrative instructions or on a mis-conceived or irrational basis, the same is improper and illegal and liable to be quashed and secondly, if an erroneous fixation of basic pay is made than what is lawfully applicable to an employee, the same can be corrected by the employer and the Courts would not normally interfere with such correction/rectification, unless the same is done in contravention of rules of natural justice. ( 26 ) PAY means the amount drawn monthly by a employee which has been sanctioned for the post held by him substantively or in an officiating capacity or to which he is entitled by reason of his position in the cadre and also includes stagnation increment, additional increment, personal pay and other emoluments, if any granted. The revision of pay scales is in the discretion of the Government. The fixation and re-fixation of pay scales is normally provided in the rules itself. Sometimes the same is done by administrative orders framed under the Rules itself. Such administrative orders confer a right upon the employee to have his pay fixed in terms of such order. ( 27 ) THE Central Government has framed a Decision No. 8 under rule 22-C of Fundamental Rules. It provides for removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay of senior on promotion drawing less pay than his junior. The salient features of the decision of the Central government seems to be that if a Government Servant is appointed or promoted to a higher post on or after 1. 4. It provides for removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay of senior on promotion drawing less pay than his junior. The salient features of the decision of the Central government seems to be that if a Government Servant is appointed or promoted to a higher post on or after 1. 4. 1961 draws a lower scale of pay in that post than a Government Servant Junior to him in the lower grade and promoted or appointed subsequently to another identical post, the pay of the senior officer in the higher post should be stepped up to a figure equal to the pay fixed for the junior officer in that higher post, provided that both the junior and senior officers should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical and in the same cadre and secondly the scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical. Lastly, the stepping up of pay would come into effect from the date of promotion or appointment of the junior officer. The exception to the decision is also provided under Clause (c) of the decision. It says, that if even in the lower post the junior officer draws a higher rate of pay than the senior by virtue of grant of advance increments, the decision of the Central Government is not pressed into service to step up the pay of the senior officer. ( 28 ) KEEPING in view the Government decision No. 8 framed under rule 22-C of the Fundamental Rules, let me now advert to the fact situation. Sri Abdul Rauf was appointed in the services of the Port Trust as Workmate in the Work Charge Establishment on 6. 11. 1972. His pay scale as on 19. 10. 1977 was Rs. 217/ -. Subsequently, he was promoted as Work Assistant and his pay was fixed at Rs. 260/- (Prerevised ). Most of the petitioners also had joined the services of respondent Port Trust as Workmates only after 6. 11. 1972 and some of the petitioners were promoted as workmates after the appointment of Sri Abdul Rauf as Workmate in the Work Charge Establishment. None of these petitioners were drawing the pay scale of Rs. 214/- as on 19. 10. Most of the petitioners also had joined the services of respondent Port Trust as Workmates only after 6. 11. 1972 and some of the petitioners were promoted as workmates after the appointment of Sri Abdul Rauf as Workmate in the Work Charge Establishment. None of these petitioners were drawing the pay scale of Rs. 214/- as on 19. 10. 1977 in the grade of Workmates since all of them had joined the services of respondent Port Trust after 6. 11. 1972. Most of these petitioners were also promoted as Work Assistant but that again after promotion of Sri Abdul Rauf as Work inspector. Even in this cadre also, they were not drawing the same scale of pay as that of Sri Abdul Rauf. These facts would clearly demonstrate that petitioners were junior of Sri Abdul Rauf both in the cadre of workmates and work Assistants and they were drawing less pay scales. ( 29 ) WORKMATE is the feeder cadre for the post of Work Assistant, which is a promotional post. The post of Work Assistant is not a feeder cadre for the post of the Tally Clerk, which requires to be filled by appointment by transfer. Sri Abdul Rauf was appointed as tally Clerk by transfer from the post of Work Inspector on 15. 4. 1983. On the date of his promotion, he has drawing a basic pay of Rs. 521/- and on his promotion as a Tally Clerk his basic pay was fixed at Rs. 549/-with the next date of increment as 1. 4. 1984. Most of these petitioner were appointed on transfer to the post of Tally Clerks earlier to Sri Abdul Rauf, but none of them were drawing the pay scale of Rs. 521/- in the grade of Work Assistants as they were not seniors to Sri Abdul Rauf in that post. ( 30 ) ON a request made by these petitioners, the respondent Port trust has stepped up the basic pay of these petitioners as Tally clerks by bringing it on par with the pay scale drawn by Sri Abdul rauf on the ground that Sri Abdul Rauf, who was transferred and appointed as Tally clerk on 15. 4. 1983, his basic pay had been fixed at Rs. 4. 1983, his basic pay had been fixed at Rs. 549/- which is higher than the pay of the other Tally Clerks, who were appointed by transfer much before Sri Abdul Rauf was appointed as Tally Clerk by transfer from the post of Work Assistant, without taking into consideration that their so called junior had entered into the service of respondent Port Trust as Workmate much before the petitioners and was promoted as Work Inspector much earlier to these petitioners and none of them were drawing the pay scale as that of Sri Abdul Rauf. The stepping up of pay scales of the petitioners had been done by the respondent Port Trust by relying upon the decision No. 8 of the Central Government framed under rule 22-C of the Fundamental Rules. The question that requires to be considered and decided is whether the respondent Port Trust was justified in re-fixing the pay scales of the petitioners by resorting to the aforesaid Government decision? The Government Decision no. 8 can be invoked, in my opinion, for stepping up of pay only under two special circumstances, namely the junior and senior officers should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical and in the same cadre. In my opinion, petitioners satisfy this first condition or the criteria. The other important condition is that the scales of pay of lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw should be identical. In the instant case, as I have already observed, the scales of pay of the petitioners and Sri Abdul Rauf in the lower post or cadre at no point of time was identical and therefore, in my view, the respondent Port Trust Could not have pressed into service the decision No. 8 of the Central Government in stepping up of pay of these petitioners to bring it on par with Sri Abdul Rauf. This is so in view of clause (c) of the Government decision which say that if an officer in the lower post draws higher rate of pay than the senior by virtue of grant of advance increments, the provisions cannot be invoked to step up the pay of senior officer. Having answered the primary issue, let me now consider very briefly the other incidental issues canvassed by the learned Counsels for the parties to the lis. Having answered the primary issue, let me now consider very briefly the other incidental issues canvassed by the learned Counsels for the parties to the lis. ( 31 ) SRI Ravivarma Kumar, learned Counsel submits that the stepping up of pay that has been done by the respondent Port Trust in the year 1987 and in the year 1990 in the case of the petitioners is in accordance with the decision of the Central Government No. 8, which is framed under Rule 22-C of the Fundamental Rules, and therefore, respondent Port Trust is not justified in passing the impugned order. This submission of the learned Counsel has no merit since I have come to the conclusion that the re-fixation of the pay scales done by the respondent port Trust is contrary to the principles evolved by the Central Government in its Decision No. 8 framed under Rule 22-C of the Fundamental Rules, and therefore, respondent Port Trust is justified in initiating proceedings to rectify the defects pointed by the internal Auditors. ( 32 ) IN so far as the second contention is concerned, learned counsel states that benefit of re-fixation of basic pay was given to these petitioners by stepping up of their pay in the year 1983 and therefore, the respondent Port Trust is not justified in re-fixing the pay scales and for ordering recovery at this belated stage. In my opinion, this submission of the petitioners learned Counsel has no merit whatsoever, for the simple reason that the internal Auditors of the respondent Port Trust have noticed the mistake committed by the respondent Port Trust in re-fixing the pay scale of the petitioner as early as in the year 1996 and thereafter a request had been made to the Port Trust to correct the apparent mistake and since nothing was done, the Ministry of Surface Transport had to step in, to advice the Port Trust to re-examine and reconsider the issue by its correspondence dated 20. 11. 1997. Immediately thereafter, the respondent Port Trust after issuing an appropriate show cause notice, has passed the impugned order and therefore, there is no delay or laches on the part of the respondent Port Trust in initiating proceedings to rectify the anomaly in re-fixation of pay scales of the petitioners. 11. 1997. Immediately thereafter, the respondent Port Trust after issuing an appropriate show cause notice, has passed the impugned order and therefore, there is no delay or laches on the part of the respondent Port Trust in initiating proceedings to rectify the anomaly in re-fixation of pay scales of the petitioners. Even otherwise, the Service Regulations of the respondent Port Trust does not provide for any law of limitation for rectifying a bonafide mistake. The learned Counsel has relied upon the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of SHYAM babu VERMA AND OTHERS vs UNION OF INDIA (Supra) and sahib RAM vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (Supra) in support of his submission that since petitioners received the higher pay scale due to no fault of their, it may not be proper for the respondent Port Trust to order recovery of excess amounts paid in view of the impugned orders. In my opinion, the observations made in the aforesaid decisions would not assist the petitioners. In those cases, the employer paid the higher emoluments to his employees working in a higher post and after realising the mistake committed by him had refixed the wages/salary and thereafter had ordered for recovery of excess amounts paid. But in the instant case, petitioners had made a representation/request before the employer to step up the pay scale to bring it on par with the basic pay of their so called juniors. This request was erroneously granted by the respondent port Trust and after realising the mistake, the respondent Port Trust has rectified its mistake after affording an opportunity of showing cause to the petitioners. In that view of the matter, even the second contention canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. Accordingly, it is rejected. ( 33 ) THIRDLY, the Ministry of Surface Transport at no point of time had directed the Chairman of the New Mangalore Port Trust to pass an order to re-fix the pay scales of the petitioners. They had only suggested to the respondent Port Trust to re-examine the matter and pass appropriate Orders. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners, that the Traffic Manager (Incharge), who has passed the impugned order has done it on the dictation of the Ministry of Surface Transport also has no basis whatsoever. They had only suggested to the respondent Port Trust to re-examine the matter and pass appropriate Orders. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners, that the Traffic Manager (Incharge), who has passed the impugned order has done it on the dictation of the Ministry of Surface Transport also has no basis whatsoever. Therefore, even this contention canvassed by the learned Counsel for petitioners requires to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected. ( 34 ) LASTLY, the learned Counsel would contend that since petitioners are also discharging the same duties as that of Sri Abdul rauf, who is appointed as Tally Clerk, the respondent Port Trust is justified in stepping up the pay scale of the petitioners to bring it on par with another Tally clerk, who is also discharging the same function and duties on the ground that there must be equal pay for equal work and since that has been done by the respondent Port Trust by re-fixing the pay scales of petitioners as early as in the year 1990, there is no justification for the respondent Port Trust to again re-fix the pay scales at this belated stage. In my opinion, the principle of equal pay for equal work is held to be inapplicable when a junior employee is given higher pay on justifiable ground or where the difference in pay scale is because of the increments earned, etc. , In the instant case, as I have already noticed, Sri Abdul Rauf was appointed much earlier to the post of Workmate and Work Assistant in the establishment of respondent Port Trust and appointment of these petitioners to the aforesaid post was much later and none of them were drawing the same pay scale as that of Sri Abdul Rauf and therefore, petitioners are not entitled to the same pay scale as that of Sri Abdul Rauf when they are appointed by transfer to the post of Tally Clerks. In that view of the matter, even this contention of the learned Counsel for petitioners cannot be accepted by this court. Accordingly, the same is rejected. ( 35 ) THESE are the only contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for petitioners in support of the reliefs sought in these Writ petitions. Since I have negatived all of them, in my opinion, petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs sought in these Writ Petitions. Accordingly, the same is rejected. ( 35 ) THESE are the only contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for petitioners in support of the reliefs sought in these Writ petitions. Since I have negatived all of them, in my opinion, petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs sought in these Writ Petitions. ( 36 ) ACCORDINGLY, the following: order i. Writ Petitions are rejected. Rule discharged. II. In the facts and circumstances of these cases, there is no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly. --- *** --- .