Judgment N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. Heard Mr.T.N.Sugesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.E.K.Kumaresan, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr.S.Ganeshkumar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 2. This writ petition is filed praying to quash the order dated 07.12.2013, rejecting the request of the petitioner seeking fixation of seniority in the cadre of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court on ad-hoc basis for the purpose of getting enhanced retirement benefits. 3. Brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed on 24.2.1983 as Judicial Second Class Magistrate (J.S.C.M.) and promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 14.3.2001 and was promoted as Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) on ad-hoc basis with effect from 01.9.2008 and further promoted as District Judge (Entry Level) on ad-hoc basis on 04.9.2009. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.2010 after serving for a period of 28½years. The 2nd respondent became the Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 21.02.1983 and promoted as Senior Civil Judge on 15.3.2001 and was promoted as Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) on ad-hoc basis on 07.5.2007 and further he was promoted as District Judge (Entry Level) on 01.12.2009. The petitioner was given pay of Rs.51550-1230-58930-1380-63070; whereas the 2nd respondent was paid a sum of Rs.55,240/-, due to which the petitioner was sanctioned with lesser pensionary benefits than the 2nd respondent, who is his junior. As there was huge difference in pay compared to that of his junior, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 11.11.2011, wherein he has prayed for stepping up of pay on par with the pay of his junior, namely, N.Ramachandran, who was junior always, except when he was posted as Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court on ad-hoc basis for a term. The said request seeking stepping up of pay to that of his junior, namely, N.Ramachandran was not considered by the 1st respondent and a reply was sent on 02.11.2012 stating that while considering the cases for promotion to the cadre of District Judges, the petitioner was promoted to the cadre of District Judge (Entry Level) along with his immediate junior, namely, N.Ramachandran without affecting the petitioner's original seniority, however, the request for stepping up of his pay to that of his junior was rejected. Petitioner again submitted a representation on 12.12.2012 relying upon FR 22-B and 27 and claimed stepping up of his pay, which was rejected by the 1st respondent by the impugned order dated 7.2.2013 without assigning any reason. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the petitioner being placed as senior in the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and District Judge (Entry Level) than the 2nd respondent, he is entitled to get stepping up of his pay to that of the 2nd respondent. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents justified the impugned order by contending that the 2nd respondent was given ad-hoc promotion as Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) prior to the petitioner and even though the petitioner's seniority was restored after being promoted as District Judge (Entry Level), the 2nd respondent having served as Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) prior to the petitioner, the order of the 1st respondent is justified. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 7. The admitted service particulars of the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent is as follows:- Thiru.R.Ramaraj Thiru.N.Ramachandran Appointed in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service as Civil Judge Junior Division) now nomenclature changed as Civil Judge 24.02.1983 21.02.1983 Promoted as Senior Civil Judge 14.03.2011 15.03.2011 Promoted as Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) on ad-hoc basis 01.09.2008 07.05.2007 Promoted as District Judge (Entry Level) on adhoc basis 04.09.2009 01.12.2009 The said details are also available in the typed set of papers filed by the 1st respondent dated 10.10.2014. 8. On perusal of the above details filed by the Registrar-General, High Court, Madras, the 1st respondent herein, it is seen that appointment of the petitioner as Civil Judge (Junior Division) was three days later than the said N.Ramachandran and when promotion was given as Senior Civil Judge, the petitioner became senior, as he was given promotion on selection on 14.03.2001 and the said N.Ramachandran was promoted on 15.03.2001, however, while giving promotion as Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) on ad-hoc basis, the said N.Ramachandran was given promotion on 07.05.2007 and the petitioner was promoted as Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) on ad-hoc basis on 01.09.2008. In the final promotion given as District Judge (Entry Level) on ad-hoc basis based on selection, the petitioner was given promotion on 04.09.2009, whereas the said N.Ramachandran was given promotion only 01.12.2009. 9. Thus, it is evident that in the cadre of Senior Civil Judge, the petitioner became senior, as he was given promotion on 14.03.2001 and the said N.Ramachandran was given promotion on 15.03.2001. In the promotion of District Judge (Entry Level) on ad-hoc basis also, the petitioner became senior, as he was given promotion on 04.09.2009 and the said N.Ramachandran was given promotion on 01.12.2009. The promotion given to the 2nd respondent as Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) on ad-hoc basis even though was earlier, on being promoted as District Judge (Entry Level) on ad-hoc basis, the petitioner's original seniority was restored. The same is made clear in the reply given by the Registrar-General, dated 02.11.2012. It is stated therein that while considering the cases for promotion to the cadre of District Judges, subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the cadre of District Judge (Entry Level) along with his immediate junior N.Ramachandran without affecting petitioner's original seniority. Therefore, it is an admitted position that the said N.Ramachandran, who is the 2nd respondent herein, is junior than the petitioner in the cadre of Senior Civil Judge as well as in the cadre of District Judge (Entry Level) on ad-hoc basis. 10. Therefore, it is an admitted position that the said N.Ramachandran, who is the 2nd respondent herein, is junior than the petitioner in the cadre of Senior Civil Judge as well as in the cadre of District Judge (Entry Level) on ad-hoc basis. 10. Fundamental Rule 27 as amended in G.O.Ms.No.977, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR.III) Department, dated 06.10.1986 reads as follows:- "The following amendment is issued to Fundamental Rules:- AMENDMENT In the said Fundamental Rules under rule 27, after ruling (16), the following shall be added, namely:- "(17) In case where a Government servant has been overlooked for promotion/appointment to the next higher post but subsequently promoted/appointed to that higher post after restoration of his original seniority on appeal, his pay shall be fixed on the date of assumption of charge in the higher post on par with the pay of his junior provided he has drawn the same rate of pay as his junior in the lower post from time to time; if he has not drawn the same rate of pay as his junior in the lower post, his pay shall be fixed, on the date of assumption of charge, at the stage at which he would have drawn pay on that date had he been promoted/appointed to the higher post along with his junior. In cases where seniority has been restored on or after 19th September 1981, arrears of pay and allowance consequent on fixation of pay shall be admissible with effect from the date of assumption of charge in the higher post, in cases where seniority has been restored prior to 19th September, 1981, arrears shall be admissible only with effect from the above date." 11. Further, Fundamental Rule 22-B(2) can be relied on for stepping up of the pay of the petitioner on par with his junior, which reads as follows:- “Rule 22(B)(2) – In case where both the senior and junior are drawing the same rate of pay in lower post, the senior who was promoted to the higher post before drawing the next increment in the lower post would be drawing less pay than his junior, who was promoted to the higher post after drawing the next increment in the lower post. In such cases, the pay of the senior officer in that higher post and the stepping up should be done with effect from the date of promotion or appointment of the junior and also subject to the following conditions:- i. Both the junior and senior officers should belong to the same cadre and the post in which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical and in the same cadre; ii. The scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical; iii. The anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of Fundamental Rule 22-B. For example, if, even in the lower post the junior officer draws from time to time, a higher rate of pay than the senior by virtue of grant of advance increments, the provisions contained in this order should not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior officer; and iv. The orders refixing the pay of the senior officers in accordance with the provisions of this order should be issued under Fundamental Rule 27. The next increment of the senior officer will be drawn on completion of the requisite qualifying service with effect from the date of refixation of pay. The above ruling shall take effect from the 1st September 1966. Cases of seniors drawing less pay than juniors in respect of promotions occurring on or after the 1st June 1962 shall also be regulated under the above ruling but the actual monetary benefit shall be admissible only with effect from the 1st September 1966.” Applying the said FR 22-B(2) and 27 if we analyse, eligibility of the petitioner to step up his pay on par with the 2nd respondent is beyond doubt. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2009) 3 SCC 94 (Gurcharan Singh Grewal and another v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others) has considered the similar issue and held that it is a settled principle of law that senior cannot be paid a lesser salary than his junior and if junior is given more pay, the department is hound to step up the pay of senior on par with his junior. 13. 13. The said aspects having not been considered by the 1st respondent while passing the impugned order, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for consideration of the claim of the petitioner seeking stepping up of his salary on par with his junior, namely, N.Ramachandran, the 2nd respondent herein, based on the seniority without monetary benefit and only for the purpose of getting pensionary benefits. The said exercise is directed to the completed by the 1st respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.