Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties concerned. The petitioner has stated that the he was appointed as an Accountant in the respondent Department, with effect from 10. 1971. In the year 1985, the petitioner was promoted as a Superintendent, with effect from 10. 1985. On attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner had retired from service, with effect from 22. 1993. 2. The petitioner had submitted a representation, dated 17. 1993, for stepping up his pay equal to that of his Junior. The request of the petitioner had been rejected by an order of the first respondent, dated 2. 1994. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred an original application in O.A.No.5225 of 1994, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.18145 of 2006. 3. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied. It is submitted that P.S.Vasantha, being a graduate, was sanctioned Graduate Allowance (three increments). However, she was drawing lesser pay than the petitioner, as on 10. 1979. As on 10. 1979, the petitioner was drawing Rs.550/- whereas P.S.Vasantha was drawing only Rs.530/-. While so, P.S.Vasantha was sanctioned an advance increment, as per G.O.Ms.No.3134, Health and Family Planning Department, dated 112. 1976, for undergoing sterilization operation and consequently, she was drawing equal or more pay than the petitioner who was senior to her, with effect from 30.10.1979. From 8. 1990, she has been drawing higher pay than the petitioner as her pay in the superintendent category was fixed under Fundamental Rule 22 B. As per the Rulings (2) (iii) under Fundamental Rule 22 B, the anomaly arising directly as a result of the application of the said rule alone should be rectified and that any difference in pay by virtue of grant of advance increments etc., cannot be rectified invoking the said rule and by stepping up the pay of the senior officer. Further, P.S.Vasantha had joined the Government Service in the post of clerk (Junior Assistant) Cadre in Tirunelveli District, whereas the petitioner had joined the Government service in the Typist cadre in Kanyakumari District Treasury. They belong to different District Treasury units in the Assistant/Accountant Category which is a feeder category to the post of Superintendent. Further, P.S.Vasantha had joined the Government Service in the post of clerk (Junior Assistant) Cadre in Tirunelveli District, whereas the petitioner had joined the Government service in the Typist cadre in Kanyakumari District Treasury. They belong to different District Treasury units in the Assistant/Accountant Category which is a feeder category to the post of Superintendent. Further, the petitioner was allowed to retain the pay fixation made in the Superintendent category in the scale of pay of Rs.905-1545, under Fundamental Rule 22B in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.677, personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 212. 1989, without actually revising his pay in the cadre of selection grade Accountant in the scale of pay of Rs.905-1545. But the pay of his Junior P.S.Vasanatha was revised in the scale of Rs.905-1545, ordered in G.O.Ms.No.684, Finance (PC) Department, dated 18. 1986 and she was not allowed to retain the pay fixation made in the scale of Rs.780-1385. In such circumstances, the claims made by the petitioner have no merit and therefore, the relief’s sought for by the petitioner ought not to be granted by this Court. 4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents had also placed before this Court a copy of the Government letter Lr.No.14298/T&A/88-2, dated 5. 1988, issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, Finance Department, stating that stepping up the pay of the senior officer in the higher post to the level of the pay fixed for the junior officer in the higher post could be done only when both the junior and the senior officers belong to the same cadre and the post in which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical and in the same cadre. Further, each district is a separate unit for the purpose of seniority, promotion etc., upto to the level of Accountants. Therefore, an Accountant belonging to one District cannot claim pay parity with his counter part in some other district who may happen to be his junior on the basis of length of service, date of promotion etc. Hence, in cases where the seniors and the juniors belong to two different Districts, in the lower post of Accountant, the conditions prescribed in ruling 2 under Fundamental Rule 22B cannot be invoked to their advantage and the disparity cannot be rectified in such cases. 5. Hence, in cases where the seniors and the juniors belong to two different Districts, in the lower post of Accountant, the conditions prescribed in ruling 2 under Fundamental Rule 22B cannot be invoked to their advantage and the disparity cannot be rectified in such cases. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the relief’s sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court as it is devoid of merits. From the reply affidavit filed by the respondents, it is clear that there is no anomaly arising directly as a result of the application of Fundamental Rule 22 B. In fact, P.S.Vasantha, who is junior to the petitioner, has been drawing higher pay based on the increments granted to her as she was sanctioned the Graduate Allowance (three increments) since she was a graduate. Further, she was sanctioned an advance increment, with effect from 30.10.1979, for undergoing sterilization operation, as per G.O.Ms.No.3134, Health and Family Planning Department, dated 112. 1976. Further, the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for granting the reliefs as prayed for by him. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.