JUDGMENT : S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J. Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the third respondent in Pro. No. 7/2013/NI-2 dated 12.02.2013, to quash the same and to issue consequential directions to the respondents to step up the pay of the petitioner on par with the petitioners immediate Junior as on 14.04.1988 and grant consequential benefits. 1. The rejection of the claim of the petitioner for stepping up of pay on par with his junior is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner joined as Record Clerk on 31.08.1991. The petitioner was appointed through Employment Exchange. His services were regularised with effect from date of his appointment and he completed probation on 11.10.1983. The petitioner states that he has passed all Departmental Tests and appointed as Junior Assistant on 20.09.2010. 3. The petitioner states that his junior Mr. S. Kumar was appointed as Record Clerk on 18.06.1986. He was appointed as Junior Assistant on 14.04.1988. He was promoted as Assistant on 17.10.1997 and Superintendent on 01.12.2010. The petitioner claims that Mr. S. Kumar was his junior in the post of Record Clerk and he was drawing the higher pay than that of the petitioner. Thus, he has made a representation to step up of his pay on par with his junior as on 14.04.1988. The claim was rejected on the ground that the junior Mr. S. Kumar was promoted as Junior Assistant a long before the petitioner’s promotion as Junior Assistant and therefore, the junior was working in the higher cadre and thus, the stepping up of pay cannot be considered. 4. This Court is of the considered opinion that the senior filing an application, seeking stepping up of pay on par with his junior, must establish that both the senior and junior are working in the same cadre. If the junior was promoted in advance on various other reasons, then the pay cannot be considered. 5. In the counter filed by the 4th respondent reveals that the said junior Mr.S.Kumar was appointed as Junior Assistant temporarily on the compassionate ground and joined on 18.06.1986. If the junior was promoted in advance on various other reasons, then the pay cannot be considered. 5. In the counter filed by the 4th respondent reveals that the said junior Mr.S.Kumar was appointed as Junior Assistant temporarily on the compassionate ground and joined on 18.06.1986. Later on, he was reverted to Record Clerk on 19.08.1988 and again he was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant on 12.01.1989 and again reverted to Record Clerk on 28.07.1989 and ousted from the post of Record Clerk due to want of vacancy. Subsequently, the junior Mr. S. Kumar was directly appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate ground and joined duty on 07.09.1992. His services were regularised from the said date 07.09.1992, but the petitioner was promoted as Junior Assistant only in the year 2010 and thus, it is clear that the junior Mr. S. Kumar was appointed as Junior Assistant nine years prior to the promotion of the writ petitioner to the post of Junior Assistant. It is further contended that the petitioner belongs to the General Subordinate Service and his junior Mr. S. Kumar belongs to Ministerial Service holding higher post of Junior Assistant and thus, the service to the post were distinct and the comparison is unacceptable. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred Rule 17 in Fundamental Rule 27, which was amended. However, the facts of the case of the petitioner is not applicable with reference to the said rule, as the petitioner and his junior Mr. S. Kumar were not promoted to the higher post from the seniority list of Record Clerks. The Junior Mr. S. Kumar was directly appointed as Junior Assistant initially on temporary basis on compassionate ground and subsequently, regularly appointed with effect form 07.09.1992. Thus, the junior Mr. S. Kumar was not promoted from the post of Record Clerk, but, directly appointed to the post of Junior Assistant and joined initially on 14.04.1989, on compassionate ground. Thus, the said Rule 17 in Fundamental Rule 27 is not applicable with reference to the case of the writ petitioner, as the services of his Junior Mr. S. Kumar is not compared with the services of the writ petitioner in the post of Record Clerk as well as in the post of Junior Assistant. This being the distinct factors explicitly established between the junior and senior, the stepping up of pay would not arise. 7. S. Kumar is not compared with the services of the writ petitioner in the post of Record Clerk as well as in the post of Junior Assistant. This being the distinct factors explicitly established between the junior and senior, the stepping up of pay would not arise. 7. With these observations, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.