JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. The petitioner is working on the post of Private Secretary-cum-Judgment Writer in the establishment of the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to assail the action of the respondents in denying him one annual grade increment and the order dated 11.06.2020 (Annexure-16) whereby, the representation dated 04.12.2018 (Annexure-15) filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid denial was rejected and to direct that the anomaly existing in the pay of the petitioner vis-a-vis with that of another Private Secretary-cum-Judgment Writer namely Ms. Tak, at par with the petitioner, be removed. 2. Shri Vikas Balia, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Hemant Ballani urged that the action of the respondents in denying same basic pay to the petitioner as another Private Secretary who is equal in rank and seniority to the petitioner and at par is absolutely unjustified, arbitrary and amounts to hostile discrimination. He urged that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 04.12.2018 (Annexure-15) to the respondent authorities for removal of this pay anomaly and in response thereto, the order dated 11.06.2020 (Annexure-16) was received wherein, it was mentioned that this pay anomaly was on account of adverse remark in the APAR. However, in reply to the writ petition, the respondents have changed their stance and have claimed that the Private Secretary Ms. Tak with whom the petitioner claims parity was, as a matter of fact, promoted to the post of Senior Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer much before the petitioner, who was promoted later, on account of pendency of an inquiry against him. It was also averred in the reply that Ms. Tak was conferred an annual grade increment on the promotional post much prior to the petitioner and hence, the anomaly which has arisen in the pay scales is logical and explainable. It was contended that contradictory stands in the order dated 11.06.2020 vis-a-vis the reply fortifies the case of the petitioner that the impugned action is arbitrary and illegal. Shri Balia urged that the promotion which was granted to Ms. Tak in the year 2013 was purely ad hoc in nature. The petitioner as well as Ms. Tak were both regularly promoted to the post of Senior Personal Assistant vide order dated 08.09.2015 and thus, there cannot be any justification for difference in pay scale of the petitioner and Ms. Tak. Tak in the year 2013 was purely ad hoc in nature. The petitioner as well as Ms. Tak were both regularly promoted to the post of Senior Personal Assistant vide order dated 08.09.2015 and thus, there cannot be any justification for difference in pay scale of the petitioner and Ms. Tak. He placed reliance on the following Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment:- 1. Union of India & Ors. v. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors., reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010 . 2. Gurpal Singh v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, reported in (2012) 13 SCC 94 (sic) & implored the Court to accept the writ petition and direct the respondents to remove the unjust and arbitrary anomaly in the petitioner's pay-scale with all consequential monetary benefits. 3. Shri Chayan Bothra, Assistant to Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned Senior Advocate, appeared for the respondents and supported the impugned action. Regarding the inconsistency pointed out in the order (Annexure-16) conveyed to the petitioner while rejecting his representation (Annexure-15) and the pleadings in the reply, Shri Bothra submitted that it was inadvertently conveyed in the order dated 11.06.2020 that the pay-scale anomaly of the petitioner was on account of adverse remark in the APAR. However, while filing reply to the writ petition, the record was examined thoroughly and it came to light that Ms. Tak was granted ad hoc promotion as Senior PA-cum-Judgment Writer on 20.12.2013 whereas the petitioner was facing an inquiry and thus, he was not promoted at the same point of time. Ms. Tak was granted an annual grade increment during the period of her assignment as Senior PA-cum-Judgment Writer on ad hoc basis for a period of two years. However, the petitioner was not entitled to such promotion and the annual grade increment because of a pending disciplinary inquiry. The petitioner as well as Ms. Tak were granted regular promotion vide order dated 08.09.2015 and since then, the petitioner is drawing salary commensurate to his post. He submitted that difference in pay being drawn by the petitioner and Ms. Tak is absolutely justified and hence, he is not entitled to the relief sought for. He also urged that the petitioner has approached this Court after a significant delay and no justification has been offered for the same and thus, the writ petition should be dismissed for laches. 4. Tak is absolutely justified and hence, he is not entitled to the relief sought for. He also urged that the petitioner has approached this Court after a significant delay and no justification has been offered for the same and thus, the writ petition should be dismissed for laches. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 5. Manifestly, by effect of the adverse APAR, which was recorded in the petitioner's service record between the years 2001-2003, he was granted selection grade with a deferment of one year. However, the adverse APAR did not entail any cumulative effect and hence, the effect thereof culminated with the deferment of selection grade. 6. It is not disputed by the respondents that promotion given to Ms. Tak in the year 2013 was purely on ad hoc basis. At that time, the petitioner was facing a disciplinary proceeding under Rule 16(3) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals), Rules, 1958 read with Rule 29 of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 which culminated into exoneration of the petitioner vide order dated 14.05.2015 whereafter the petitioner was conferred regular promotion along with Ms. Tak w.e.f. 08.09.2015. Apparently, the disciplinary inquiry having culminated in favour of the petitioner, there is nothing adverse in the record which could entail denial of appropriate pay scale to the petitioner. Simply because Ms. Tak was granted ad hoc promotion and during her tenure on such ad hoc work arrangement, she was granted an annual grade increment cannot be a valid reason so as to deny the same benefit to the petitioner. No sooner the petitioner was exonerated in the disciplinary inquiry, the respondents should have granted benefit of annual grade increment to the petitioner as was granted to Ms. Tak albeit on notional basis retrospectively. Once the service record was set straight with culmination of the disciplinary inquiry, the petitioner was unquestionably required to be brought at par with Ms. Tak in the matter of pay-scale because the petitioner and Ms. Tak stand on the same pedestal in the seniority list. 7. Tak albeit on notional basis retrospectively. Once the service record was set straight with culmination of the disciplinary inquiry, the petitioner was unquestionably required to be brought at par with Ms. Tak in the matter of pay-scale because the petitioner and Ms. Tak stand on the same pedestal in the seniority list. 7. However, it may be mentioned here that the petitioner approached the learned Registrar General for removal of the pay anomaly by filing representation dated 04.12.2018 after a significant delay of three years and thus, no retrospective benefits can be given to him. 8. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to remove the pay anomaly and to bring the petitioner's pay at par with Ms. Tak. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including difference of pay etc. from 01.01.2019 onwards. For the previous period, the petitioner shall be entitled to notional benefits only. The writ petition is allowed in these terms. There is no orders as to costs.