Vijender Jain, J. ( 1 ) RULE D. B. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition can be disposed of at this stage. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of the Tribunal suffers from the vice of non- consideration of the ratio of Union of India and Anr. v. R. Swaminathan, etc. etc. JT 1997 (8) S. C. 61. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that in R. Swaminathan s case (supra), it was held by the Supreme Court as follows: "12. As the Order itself states, the stepping up is subject to three conditions: (1) Both the junior and the senior officers should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted should be identical and in the same cadre; (2) the scales of pay of the lower and higher posts should be identical and; (3) anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of Fundamental Rule 22-C which is now Fundamental Rule 22 (l) (a) (l ). We are concerned with the last condition. The difference in the pay of a junior and a senior in the cases before us is not a result of the application of Fundamental Rule 22 (l) (a) (l ). The higher pay received by a junior is on account of his earlier officiation in the higher post because of local officiating promotions which he got in that post. Because of the proviso to Rule 22 he may have earned increments in the higher pay-scale of the post to which he is promoted on account of his past service and also his previous pay in the promotional post has been taken into account in fixing his pay on promotion. It is these two factors which have increased the pay of the juniors. This cannot be considered as an anomaly requiring the stepping of the pay of the seniors. " ( 3 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Supreme Court it was contended before us that after the promotion of Rajan was quashed by the tribunal, the service was treated as ad hoc by the petitioner,. This cannot be considered as an anomaly requiring the stepping of the pay of the seniors. " ( 3 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Supreme Court it was contended before us that after the promotion of Rajan was quashed by the tribunal, the service was treated as ad hoc by the petitioner,. Therefore, taking the ratio of R. Swaminathan s case, it cannot be said that a junior cannot be granted a higher pay scale on account of his earlier officiation in the higher post because of the fact that he has worked in that post. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that this aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Tribunal and, therefore, the pay fixation of the petitioner cannot be in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal. We have given our careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. The promotion of Rajan who was junior to the respondent was on account of the fact that it was done pursuant to a reservation policy of the petitioner, that promotion was quashed by the Tribunal. The order quashing the promotion was not challenged by the petitioner. Once that promotion was quashed, it was mandatory on the part of the petitioner to have refixed the pay pursuant to fundamental Rule 22 which is to the following effect: " (27) Instances which do not constitute an anomaly for stepping up of pay with reference to juniors-Cases for stepping up of the pay of seniors in a pay scale to that of juniors are generally considered if the following conditions are satisfied- i (a) both the junior and senior officer 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 the junior and senior officer are entitled to draw pay should be identical: (c) the anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of FR 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 or on any other account, the above provisions will not be invoked to step up the pay of senior officer. " ( 4 ) THERE is no dispute that the respondent and Rajan belong to the same cadre and Rajan was junior to the respondent. The respondent retired as deputy Director on 30th June, 2001 after the decision of the Tribunal where the earlier promotion made of Rajan was quashed. The respondent was given deemed promotion w. e. f. 11th February, 2000 whereas Rajan was promoted from 1st July, 2001. As Rajan was working on the post of Director earlier to the respondent, his pay was admittedly more than the respondent s pay. Therefore, the finding by the Tribunal: that the period from llth February, 2000 to 30th june, 2001 when both of them belonged to the same cadre and holding similar posts, the respondent who was senior to Rajan could not draw less pay scale as per principles of service jurisprudence. We find no infirmity in the order of the tribunal. ( 5 ) THERE is no merit in this petition. Dismissed. Petition dismissed. .