JUDGMENT By Court - The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of order dated 12.12.2007 and for a consequent relief of fixation of pay-scale/pension at par with one Baleshwar Singh. 2. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Office Peon on 01.10.1966 and he was appointed as Blue Printer on 27.01.1967. The petitioner was appointed on redesignated post of Tracer on 24.10.1973 and he superannuated from service w.e.f. 28.02.2001. One Baleshwar Singh with whom the petitioner has sought parity in the pay-scale and grant of pension, was appointed as Blue Printer on 22.02.1966 however, he was appointed on redesignated post of Tracer on 02.02.1974. The said Baleshwar Singh superannuated from service w.e.f. 31.01.2007. However, by the impugned order dated 12.12.2007, the petitioner was denied the grant of pay-scale and pension at par with said Baleshwar Singh. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed giving service details of the petitioner and the said Baleshwar Singh and it has been stated thus, 7. “That the service history of the petitioner and Sri Baleshwar Singh, retired Tracer are as follows:- 1. Sri Baleshwar Singh: (I) 1st appointment as Blue Printer on 22.02.1966. (II) Redesignated as Tracer on 02.02.1974. (III) Retired on 31.01.2007. (IV) Length of service40 Yrs. 11 Months 9 Days. 2. Sri Satyadeo Pandey :- (I) 1st appointment as Office Peon on 01.10.1966. (II) Appointed as Blue Printer on 27.01.1967. (III) Redesignated as Tracer on 24.10.1973. (IV) Retired on 28.02.2001. (V) Length of service34 Yrs. 4 Months 27 Days. 8. That from the above chart it is clear that Sri Baleshwar Singh was senior from the petitioner. Petitioner's first appointment was on 01.10.1966 as Office Peon whereas Sri Baleshwar Singh was appointed on 22.02.1966 as Blue Printer. Post of Office Peon and Blue Printer are in different cadres. It cannot be compared. During the service period petitioner could not raised this matter and after retirement he raised the matter through RTI Act. All the required information has been given to the petitioner, matter was closed vide RTI Commissioner on 27.05.2008 vide appeal No. 920/2007.” 5. Post of Office Peon and Blue Printer are in different cadres. It cannot be compared. During the service period petitioner could not raised this matter and after retirement he raised the matter through RTI Act. All the required information has been given to the petitioner, matter was closed vide RTI Commissioner on 27.05.2008 vide appeal No. 920/2007.” 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that from the documents which has been provided to the petitioner from the RTI, it would appear that as far back as on 1.04.1971, the pay-scale of both, the petitioner and the said Baleshwar Singh was fixed at Rs.220/. He has further drawn attention of this Court to pay-scale which was fixed on 30.07.1981 when the pay-scale of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.551/whereas, the pay-scale of said Baleshwar Singh was fixed at Rs.490/. He has further submitted that the petitioner was appointed on redesignated post of Tracer prior to the said Baleshwar Singh i.e. on 24.10.1973 whereas, the said Baleshwar Singh was appointed on redesignated post of Tracer on 02.02.1974 therefore, the petitioner is entitled to have his pay-scale fixed at par with said Baleshwar Singh. 6. As against the above, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that since the petitioner was junior to the said Baleshwar Singh in as much as, the petitioner was appointed as Peon on 01.10.1966 whereas, the said Baleshwar Singh was appointed on the post of Blue Printer on 22.02.1966, that is, on higher post therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted pay-scale at par with the said Baleshwar Singh. 7. From the documents on record I find that, it has been admitted by the respondents that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Tracer on 24.10.1973 whereas, the said Baleshwar Singh was appointed on the post of Tracer on 02.02.1974. I further find that the document which has been provided to the petitioner through the RTI would disclose that the petitioner was drawing pay-scale at par or even more than the said Baleshwar Singh on different occasions however, no reason whatsoever, has been disclosed by the respondents for not granting pay-scale and pension to him compared to the said Baleshwar Singh. Moreover, once the petitioner joined the post of Tracer, the pay-scale applicable on the post of Tracer would be granted to the petitioner. Moreover, once the petitioner joined the post of Tracer, the pay-scale applicable on the post of Tracer would be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed on redesignated post of Tracer w.e.f. 24.10.1973 and therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied the pay-scale which has been given to the Baleshwar Singh who was appointed on the post of Tracer on 02.02.1974. The date of initial appointment on the post of Tracer is the relevant date and not the date of joining the service. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that the respondent No.2 would fix the pay-scale of the petitioner at par with the said Baleshwar Singh as on 02.02.1974. Petition allowed.