Judgment :- Elipe Dharma Rao, J. Challenging the order, dated 02.11.2010, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.465 of 2009, dismissing the claim made by the petitioner for stepping up her pay on par with her junior and to pay the arrears of pay and allowances, this writ petition has been filed by her, seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to step up her pay on par with her juniors and also to pay the arrears of pay and allowances and all other service benefits to the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the entered into the service of the Postal Department on 29.08.1981 and her junior, one Ravichandran, has joined service on 18.11.1981. It is the grievance of the petitioner that both of them were given promotion on getting Lower Selection Grade under Time Bound One Promotion Scheme and while the petitioner’s pay was fixed as Rs.4750/- as on 01.01.1998, the pay scale of the said Ravichandran has been fixed as Rs.4875/-and though she made several representations to the respondents 1 to 4 to step up her pay on par with her junior right from the year 1998, the third respondent, as per order dated 15.02.2007, has replied that the petitioner’s request for condonation of delay in considering option for fixation of pay has been rejected by the fifth respondent. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file O.A.No.465 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to step up her pay on par with her juniors and also to pay the arrears of pay and allowances and all other service benefits to the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she entered into the service of the Postal Department on 29.08.1981 and her junior, one Ravichandran, has joined service on 18.11.1981. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she entered into the service of the Postal Department on 29.08.1981 and her junior, one Ravichandran, has joined service on 18.11.1981. It is the grievance of the petitioner that both of them were given promotion on getting Lower Selection Grade under Time Bound One Promotion Scheme and while the petitioner’s pay was fixed as Rs.4750/- as on 01.01.1998, the pay scale of the said Ravichandran has been fixed as Rs.4875/-and though she made several representations to the respondents 1 to 4 to step up her pay on par with her junior right from the year 1998, the third respondent, as per order dated 15.02.2007, has replied that the petitioner’s request for condonation of delay in considering option for fixation of pay has been rejected by the fifth respondent. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file O.A.No.465 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to step up her pay on par with her junior and also to pay the consequential pay and allowances to her. 3. The Tribunal, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the original application by holding that there was no infirmity in the decision taken by the respondents 1 to 4 thereby rejecting the petitioner’s representation, which was filed in the year 2006, for condonation of delay in exercising her option, inasmuch as the circular was issued to exercise the option during 1989 and immediately thereafter the petitioner has not chosen to approach the respondents 1 to 4, and in view of the inordinate delay on the part of petitioner in approaching the respondents, i.e., in the year 2006, her request was rightly rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4. 5. We have gone through the entire materials placed on record. From the perusal of the records, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the original application, which was filed by the petitioner to step up her pay on par with her junior. 5. We have gone through the entire materials placed on record. From the perusal of the records, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the original application, which was filed by the petitioner to step up her pay on par with her junior. Though it is the case of the respondents 1 to 4 that as on the crucial date, the petitioner has not exercised her option, whereas her junior has exercised his option and the pay scale of the petitioner, but it is asserted that immediately, when the petitioner came to know about the parity between the pay scales, she has submitted a representation on 21.09.1998 to the third respondent to step up her pay on par with her junior, which is also admitted in the reply affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 4 before the Tribunal, in paragraph No.11, that the petitioner has made a representation in this regard since 1998 to various levels in the Department. It that is the case, the respondents 1 to 4, instead of considering the case of the petitioner, rejected her case, which is considered to be illegal. 6. It is also brought to our notice that in an identical situation, a Division Bench of this Court, as per the order made in W.P.No.26770 of 2005, dated 25.06.2009, in which Justice Elipe Dharma Rao is one of a Member, has held as follows:- “6. However, the Tribunal found that the 1st respondent’s case does not fall under any of the categories enumerated under Paragraph 2(a) to (f) of the Government Orders No.26 under FRZZ. But there is a memorandum issued by the Department of Personnel & Training O.M.No.16/8/2002 Estt.A(1), dated 25.02.2003 Annexure RR-1, according to which, a Government servant can give a revised option within one month from the date of orders in the event of unforeseen developments or change of rules, but not after the expiry of that period. The above memorandum contemplates two circumstances to revise the option, i.e., unforeseen development or change of rule, that too within a period of one month from the date of orders. The above memorandum contemplates two circumstances to revise the option, i.e., unforeseen development or change of rule, that too within a period of one month from the date of orders. Once the Government has exercised its power and relaxed the rule to enable the Government servants to revise their option, if the exercise of the option went to the detriment to the interest of the senior, especially when both the junior and the senior are working in the same post in the lower cadre and drawing the same scale of pay, but due to the exercise of option in the promotional posts, junior is drawing pay than the senior, we consider it appropriate to strictly follow the said memorandum for implementation of the claim of the 1st respondent, as the option exercised is detriment to the interest of the Government Staff and therefore, it can be considered as the condition of unforeseen development.” 7. Following the aforesaid order, the order passed by the Tribunal, dated 02.11.2010 in O.A.No.465 of 2009 is liable to be set aside and it is, accordingly, set aside. The writ petition is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.