Judgment :- (PRAYER IN W.P.No.35695/2002: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of kthe second respondent made in O.A.No.672 of 2001 dt.17.4.2002 and quash the same. Common Order: (Elipe Dharma Rao, J.) These writ petitions are directed against the common order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai in O.A.No.542 of 2001 and a batch of cases, directing to consider stepping up of pay of the applicants/first respondent in these writ petitions on par with their juniors with effect from the date of their regular promotion . 2. The case of the applicants in the Original Applications/the first respondent herein is that the applicants were initially appointed as Telephone Operators (Tos for short) and later promoted as Senior Telecom Operating Assistants (Sr.TOSs for short) on an adhoc basis and as on date they are working as such. Some of the officials were given officiating arrangement in the cadre of Sr.TOAs and this has enabled such persons to draw higher pay in the officiating post. However, when regular promotions to the post of Sr.TOA were made, it is seen that the juniors to the applicants in all these Original Applications have been given a higher pay by taking into account their pay drawn in the officiating capacity. Aggrieved by the said action of the official respondents, the applicants made several representations for redressal of their grievances. When their representations were not considered, they were constrained to approach the Tribunal and file the Original applications for stepping up of their pay on par with their juniors. 3. The above said prayer was resisted by the respondents/the petitioners herein, contending that the department was upgrading the technology in matters relating to telecom. In order to meet the new requirements, the employees who had working knowledge of higher technology were made to work in officiating capacity arrangement as Sr.TOAs. Under these circumstances, irrespective of seniority of the employees, whoever was working in the new technology area were given officiating position as Sr.TOA. According to the official respondents, this process has been going on since 1993. They further contended that when regular DPC meetings were held to make promotion to the post of Sr.TOAs, all the applicants along with others were promoted in accordance with the Rules. According to the official respondents, this process has been going on since 1993. They further contended that when regular DPC meetings were held to make promotion to the post of Sr.TOAs, all the applicants along with others were promoted in accordance with the Rules. They further submitted that since some juniors had already worked in the officiating position, they naturally had gained advantage over their seniors in the matter of pay fixation and in that context, the juniors were given higher pay fixation than seniors, viz., the applicants in the Original applications. The official respondents had placed reliance on the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal rendered in O.A.No.26 of 1999 on 18.9.2000, which was dismissed by the Tribunal. 4. After hearing both the counsel for the applicants and the respondents, after following the judgement of the Supreme Court in 1997 SCC (L&S) 701 (Union of India and others v. P.Jagdish and other', wherein the Supreme Court held as follows: "....The principle of stepping up of the pay as contained in the Fundamental Rules becomes applicable when the junior officer and senior officer belong to the same category and the post from which they have promoted and in the promoted cadre the junior officer on being promoted later than the senior officer gets a higher pay. Hence, the respondents being senior to several other Senior Clerks and having been promoted earlier than many of their juniors who were promoted later to the post of Head Clerks, the principle of stepping up should be made applicable to the respondents with effect from the date their juniors in the erstwhile cadres of Senior Clerks got promoted to the cadre of Head Clerks and their pay was fixed at a higher slab than that of the respondents. The stepping up should be done in such a way that the anomaly of juniors getting higher salary than the seniors in the promoted category of Head Clerk would be removed and the pay of the seniors like the respondents would be stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for their junior officer in the higher post of Head Clerk.." the Tribunal observed that at the time of making officiating arrangements in the grade of Sr.TOAs, the department had not asked for the options of seniors as to whether they are willing to accept the officiating arrangements for the post of Sr.TOAs, carrying higher pay. The Tribunal further observed that since no options had been called for from the applicants to work in the new technology area and the officiating arrangements were made purely adopting a pick and chose method, this amounts to whimsical attitude of the official respondents. Therefore, the question of refusal of stepping up of pay of the seniors with that of the juniors does not arise. As per Fundamental Rule 22, if a senior foregoes promotion, leading to his junior being promoted to the higher post earlier, the senior is not entitled to protection of his pay on par with his junior. The Tribunal also recorded that if the persons belonging to the same cadre both in the feeder category as also in the promoted cadre on regular promotion cannot draw a lesser pay than that of his juniors. In the instant case the applicants are all seniors to the private respondents both in the feeder category as well as in the promoted cadre. Therefore, they cannot be paid a lesser pay than that of their juniors and the Tribunal allowed the Original Applications as stated above. 5. Aggrieved over the order passed by the Tribunal, the present writ petitions are filed, contending that the Tribunal erred in allowing the Original applications. It is contended by the petitioners that the increased pay drawn by a junior either due to ad hoc officiating/regular service rendered in the higher posts for periods earlier than the senior cannot therefore be an anomaly and the petitioners referred various instances under which the juniors cannot claim pay parity with the juniors. 6. We have gone through the entire materials placed on record, the Fundamental Rule and the Supreme Court decisions cited above. 6. We have gone through the entire materials placed on record, the Fundamental Rule and the Supreme Court decisions cited above. We are of the considered view that there is no fault on the part of the first respondent in each petitions and the Department has not asked the option of seniors, while making officiating arrangement. 7. The Department has followed the pick and chose method, which amounts to their whimsical attitude. The Tribunal allowed the Original Applications, after following the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, stepping up of pay of the first respondent/applicants in each writ petitions on par with their juniors. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.Ps are closed.