Judgment :- 1. The writ petitioner challenges the order of the second respondent dated 22.04.2004, by which the request of the petitioner to re-fix his pay scale on par with his junior, viz., G. Sivaprasad, Assistant Administrative Officer, Tirupathur came to be rejected by referring to Regulations 33(b) and 33(f) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations (for brevity, “the Regulations”). 2.1. The petitioner was originally appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on 27.12.1960, while his junior – G. Sivaprasad was appointed as a Steno Typist on 24.06.1963. Both the posts are of the same cadre. However, as a Steno Typist the said G. Sivaprasad was given special pay during the time of his initial appointment. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant on 24.06.1970 with seniority No.810, while the said G. Sivaprasad was promoted as Assistant on 2.12.1974 with seniority No.2021, viz., after more than four year from the date of promotion of the petitioner as Assistant. Again, it is seen that the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant has been granted selection grade on 24.06.1980, much before his junior – G. Sivaprasad, who was granted section grade only on 3.12.1984. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted as Administrative Supervisor on 4.5.1988, while the said G. Sivaprasad was promoted as Administrative Supervisor on 27.12.1989. Likewise, in the next cadre of Assistant Administrative Officer also, while the petitioner’s promotion was on 25.08.1995, the said G. Sivaprasad was promoted on 9.7.1997. 2.2. However, when the promotion to the cadre of Administrative Supervisor was made, while fixing the pay, the pay of the petitioner was fixed at ‘1,940/-, while that of G. Sivaprasad was fixed at ‘2,060/- and that has also continued in the next promotional post of Assistant Administrative Officer, wherein while the petitioner’s pay was fixed at ‘2,855.50, the pay fixed for G. Sivaprasad was ‘3,045/- and there was an anomaly. It is to rectify the said anomaly the petitioner has made a representation, pursuant to which the second respondent has passed the impugned order. 3.1. The main contention raised by the respondents, as it is seen in the counter affidavit and as also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, is that even when the petitioner was promoted as an Administrative Supervisor in the year 1988 his salary was lesser than G. Sivaprasad and at that time the petitioner has not raised any objection. The main contention raised by the respondents, as it is seen in the counter affidavit and as also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, is that even when the petitioner was promoted as an Administrative Supervisor in the year 1988 his salary was lesser than G. Sivaprasad and at that time the petitioner has not raised any objection. However, it is not in dispute that the said G. Sivaprasad, who was also appointed initially along with the petitioner in the same cadre, was junior to the petitioner. 3.2. the case of the respondents is that while working as Steno Typist in the initial appointment, the said G. Sivaprasad was given an additional incentive and that has been added as forming part of his salary and by virtue of that, while promotion has been granted, there has been a pay hike in respect of him and according to the respondents, it is not an anomaly and it is a benefit given to the said G. Sivaprasad. To substantiate the said contention the learned counsel for the respondents would rely upon Regulation 33(b) of the Regulations, which states as follows: “33(b) An employee on appointment or promotion to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greated importance shall have his initial pay in the time-scale of the higher post fixed at the stage next above the pay nationally arrived at by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post by one increment at the stage at which such pay has accrued” 3.3. It is the further contention that the pay fixed for a Steno Typist and any incentive paid as a special pay is directed to be treated as a personal pay to him not attached to the post and that is as per Regulation 33(f) of the Regulations, which is as follows: “33(f) The pay of Typists and Steno-Typists on their promotion as Assistants shall be fixed at the appropriate stage in the time scale applicable to the post of Assistant taking into account the pay and special pay drawn by them in the post of Typist or Steno Typist, as the case may be, prior to promotion, and if there is no such stage in the scale of pay for the Assistant the pay shall be fixed at the stage next below the pay plus special pay, the difference being treated as personal pay to be absorbed in future increments. If however the pay plus special pay is less than the minimum of the time scale of pay of the Assistant, then their pay shall be fixed at the Minimum of the time scale of pay applicable to the Assistant. The provisions of Regulation 33(b) shall not apply in this case.’ 4. On a reading of the said Regulation 33(f) of the Regulations it is clear that any incentive that is granted to the said G. Sivaprasad while working in the initial stage as Steno Typist can only be treated as a personal pay and that cannot be added to the basic pay of the individual concerned. If really the same has been included as forming part of the pay, the petitioner is certainly entitled to equal treatment, since it is not in dispute that the petitioner is senior to G. Sivaprasad, both of them having been appointed initially in the same cadre, while the petitioner’s appointment was on 27.12.1960, the said G. Sivaprasad was appointed on 24.06.1963. In view of the above said position, as clearly stated in the Regulations, I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the second respondent is not legally sustainable. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that as early as 17.10.2001 the pay of the petitioner has been fixed lesser than the pay of the said G. Sivaprasad and that order has become final. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that as early as 17.10.2001 the pay of the petitioner has been fixed lesser than the pay of the said G. Sivaprasad and that order has become final. On the other hand, on fact it is seen that as against the order of the second respondent, the petitioner’s appeal preferred on 21.11.2001 is pending before the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, namely the first respondent, as it is evidence from the acknowledgment itself filed in the typist of papers. When such appeal is pending it cannot be said that the petitioner has accepted the lesser pay. Moreover, at the instance of the writ petitioner a writ petition in W.P. No.1336 of 2004 was filed and this Court, by order dated 30.01.2004, has directed the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to considered the said appeal dated 21.11.2001 and in spite of it the Appellate Authority has not passed any order and in the meantime, taking that representation into consideration, the second respondent has passed the present order, which cannot be said to be in accordance with law. In such view of the matter, the reason adduced by the respondents is not in accordance with the Regulations and accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order stands set aside with a direction to the respondents to re-fix the pay of the petitioner at ‘9,750/- on per with his junior – G. Sivaprasad, with effect from 1.10.1997 and pay all the monetary and consequential benefits due to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.