ORDER : (K. Manmadha Rao, J.) : WP No.23997 of 2020 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief: “… to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS by holding that the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioners for re fixation of the Pay by rectifying the pay anomaly as capricious violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India contrary to F R 22 (1a) I R/w Rule 13 of CCS RP Rules 2016 and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to the respondents to directing to consider the case of all the petitioners for refixation of the Pay by rectifying the pay anomaly with all the consequential benefits and to pay the arrears of difference of salary from the date of pay anomalous introduced forthwith and pass…” WP No.23938 of 2020 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief: “….to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS by holding that the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioners for re fixation of the Pay by rectifying the pay anomaly as capricious violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India contrary to FR 22 1a11 R/v Rule 13 of CCS RP Rules 2016 and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to the respondents to directing to consider the case of all the petitioners for refixation of the Pay by rectifying the pay anomaly with all the consequential benefits and to pay the arrears of difference of salary from the date of pay anomalous introduced forthwith and pass…” WP No.24407 of 2020 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief: “……to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS by holding that the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioners for refixation of the Pay by rectifying the pay anomaly as capricious violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India contrary to F R 22 (1a)(1) R/w Rule 13 of CCS RP Rules 2016 and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to the respondents to directing to consider the case of all the petitioners for refixation of the Pay by rectifying the pay anomaly with all the consequential benefits and to pay the arrears of difference of salary from the date of pay anomalous introduced forthwith and pass…..” 2. As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order. 3. Since the facts in all the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore WP No.23997 of 2020 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience. 4. The grievance of the petitioners in this case is that the 1" petitioner herein was appointed as Diploma Trainee in the month of October, 2011 and he is drawing less pay than his juniors. Hence, the same was represented to the authorities, but till date no consideration was made, which is unjust and arbitrary. The 2nd petitioner was also similarly situated and he is also drawing less pay than his junior. Questioning the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioners for re-fixation of the pay by rectifying the pay anomaly, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents No.4 to 6. In the counter affidavit, while denying all the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that the Assistant Foreman/Tradesman 'E'/Asst, is the highest designation/cadre in the workmen category. The above designation/ cadre will become Foreman/AAO on promotion, which comes under officer category. The anomaly generally arises due to the effect of wage revision before and after the promotion. It is further stated that the period of wage revisions are generally for a period of five years i.e., April 2003 to March 2008, April 2008 to March 2013 and April 2013 to March 2018. It is relevant to submit that if two persons "X" & "Y" joined as an Asst. Foreman/Tradesman 'E'/Asst (workman) on the same date. Out of them, X' promoted in the month of March 2013 and 'Y' promoted in the month of April 2013, then the basic of 'X' will be reached to existing basic plus 3% of existing basic (as a promotional benefits), however, due to revision of wages in the month of April 2013, the basic pay of Y' will reach ((existing basic pay + existing DA + 15% of (existing basic + existing DA) as a guaranteed benefit)) + 3% of revised basic as per policy of the company. In this scenario ‘Y’ may be junior to 'X' as per the date of promotion, but the basic salary of ‘Y’ will be higher than 'X'. It is pertinent to mention here that the basic of junior might be higher than the senior but scale of pay will always be less than the senior. Therefore the relief sought for in the present writ petitions are not tenable and liable to be dismissed. 6. Reply affidavit has also been filed by the petitioners to the counter affidavits filed by the respondents. While reiterating the averments in the writ affidavit, denied all the allegations made in the counter affidavits 7. Heard Sri S.M. Subhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri G. Arun Showri and Sri V.Venkata Naga Raju, learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 8. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the averments made in the petition, submits that, the petitioners herein were appointed in the month a October, 2010 and 2011 and drawing only Rs 37,970/-, but whereas their colleague namely Sri M.Ganagaih, Asst Foreman, E-35118, who was also appointed along with the petitioners, he is getting Rs.42,510/- as basic pay and that the said pay anomaly was occurred since April, 2018 and when the same was represented to the authorities for several times as also on 29.10.2020, there is no response, for which, the petitioners herein are suffering a lot, for drawing less pay than his colleague though working along with him and promoted as Foreman. He further submits that once it is acknowledged that a mistake has been committed, whereby an anomaly has arisen, the mistake has to be remedied in such a manner, that the aggrieved party does not have any adverse effect of the mistake/anomaly. This would be possible if an anomaly in pay scale corrected retrospectively with effect from the date when anomalous pay scale was introduced. On the other hand, if mistake/anomaly is corrected from a future date, the concerned individual have to suffer the effect of the anomaly, from the date it had arisen, till date it was remedied. 9. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Lt.Col. On the other hand, if mistake/anomaly is corrected from a future date, the concerned individual have to suffer the effect of the anomaly, from the date it had arisen, till date it was remedied. 9. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Lt.Col. Khajoor Singh vs. The Union of India & another, 1961 AIR 532, wherein it was held that For the reasons discussed above I have reached the conclusion that while the Government of India is within the territories of every High Court in India the only High Court which has jurisdiction to issue a writ or order or directions under Art. 226 or Art. 32 (2A) against it is the one within the territories under which the act or omission against which relief was sought took place. In the present case the act against which the relief has been sought was clearly performed at Delhi which is within the territories under the jurisdiction of the Punjab High Court and the Jammu and Kashmir High Court cannot therefore exercise its jurisdiction under Art. 226. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Government of India vs. B.Anil Kumar, (2010) 6 SCC 419 and submits that, if Court once holds that under the respective rules; if employees concerned are entitled to the benefits of Special Pay, the Court itself should grant relief and need not direct the employee to move the government for reconsideration of the fixation of their pay scale. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that from the date of the Revision of pay scales in the year 2018 they are losing their basic pay to the tune of more than Rs.5000/- per month, though they represented several times through unions and individually; but there is no response from the respondents. Hence, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents also reiterated the averments made in the counter and submits that the answering respondent corporation never violated any Fundamental Rules much less the F.R. 22(1)(a)(1) r/w. Rule 13 of CCS (RP) Rules 2016 and the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents also reiterated the averments made in the counter and submits that the answering respondent corporation never violated any Fundamental Rules much less the F.R. 22(1)(a)(1) r/w. Rule 13 of CCS (RP) Rules 2016 and the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the Uranium Corporation of India Limited is a Public Sector undertaking under the administrative control of Department of Atomic Energy established in the year 1960. He submits that whatever contentions raised by the petitioners are hereby denied and the relief sought for in the present writ petitions are devoid of merits and hence the same are liable to be dismissed. 12. As seen from the reply affidavit filed by the petitioners, it is observed that, as per MOU on 01.01.2016 workers PRC Asst. foreman/ Tradesman-E will get : Initial basic pay was 22700 Dearness allowances 23.9% 5425 28125 On 01.01.2016 supervisors (EO Scale) will get Initial basic pay was 12600 Dearness Allowances 112.4% 14162.40 26762 Initial loss Rs.1362 for EO employees on 01.01.2016 Note protected pay of scale and also will get low salary than of JUNIORS. 13. It is further observed in the reply affidavit that, while earlier pay scales of Asst. foreman/ tradesman-E workman was lower to the appellants the same become higher on account of the said settlement with fitment the revision as follows the memorandum of understanding (MOU) shall come into force with effective from 01.04.2013 for a period of 05 years and shall remain valid upto 31.03.2018 subject to approval of govt. of India. Scale of pay as follows. The initial basic of Asst. foreman/Tradesman-E as follows. Workman grade Asst. foreman/ Tradesman-E Existing scale of pay 11510-3%-17930 Revised scale of pay 22700-3%-35360 The difference in the salary of the applicants and workman is said to be about more than thousands per month. 14. It is further observed that, on 01.04.2013 workers PRC applicable the Asst. foreman/ Tradesman-E will get Initial basic pay was Initial basic pay was 22700 Dearness allowances 1.98% Rs.449.46 23149 On 01.04.2013 supervisors (EO Scale) will get Initial basic pay was 12600 Dearness allowances 74.9% 9437 22037 Initial loss Rs.1112 for EO Employees 15. It is further observed in the reply affidavit that, after implementation of workers PRC, the petitioner’s juniors got more salary than that of the petitioners w.e.f. 01.04.2013. It is further observed in the reply affidavit that, after implementation of workers PRC, the petitioner’s juniors got more salary than that of the petitioners w.e.f. 01.04.2013. This would be possible if an anomaly in pay scales is corrected retrospectively with effect from the date when the anomalous pay scale introduced. On the other hand, if the mistake/anomaly is corrected a future date, the concerned individual will have to suffer the effect of anomaly, from the date it had arisen, till the date it was remedied. It is further observed that latter determination would be iniquitous and acceptable in law as it would not be able to stand the test of Article of the Constitution of India, which postulates equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. This Court further observed that the Petitioners are non - unionized supervisors with respondent corporation UCIL. The feeder cadre for the said post is the cadre of workmen called Asst. foreman/ Tradesmen-E the cadre of the Petitioners is known as EO pay scales of the appellants are governed by orders passed from time to time by the corporation in pursuance of policy of central government as the corporation is a public sector unit. This Court further observed that the Government had setup a pay revision committee 2nd PRC under the chairmanship of Justice M. Jagannadha rao retd. Judge of Supreme Court of India to recommend revision of pay and allowances for the above category of employees follows IDA patters of pay scales. Applicable on 01.01.2007 (2007 to 2017) for tenure of 10 years. 16. In a recent decision of Hon’ble Surpeme Court reported in Maheshkumar Chandulal Patel and another vs The State Of Gujarat and others, Civil Appeal No. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C ) No.9098 of 2018), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “The time scales of the higher posts to which the Government employees are promoted or appointed shall be identical; iv. the senior Government employee had he not been appointed to the higher post earlier than his junior, he would have been eligible to draw pay at a stage not lower than that admissible to his junior in the lower post immediately prior to the appointment of the junior Government employee to the higher post; iv. the anomaly so caused must be the direct result of the application of this rule. the anomaly so caused must be the direct result of the application of this rule. For example, if even in the lower post the junior Government employee draws from time to time a higher rate of pay than the senior by virtue of fixation of pay under the normal rules or by grant of advance increment(s) for any reason, these provisions shall not be applicable to step up the pay of the senior Government employee. v. the pay of the senior Government employee so increased due to stepping up of pay shall not be reduced on reversion of the junior Government employee nor shall it be increased again with reference to the pay of the same officer. (2) After the re-fixation of pay of the senior Government employee with reference to the pay of his junior, the next increment shall occur to him only after he has rendered the qualifying service which is necessary for drawing such increment from the stage at which his pay had been refixed.” The orders refixing the pay of the senior officers in accordance with the above provisions shall be issued under FR 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.” As the Order itself states, the stepping up is subject to three conditions: (1) Both the junior and the senior officers should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted should be identical and in the same cadre; (2) the scales of pay of the lower and higher posts should be identical; and (3) anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of Fundamental Rule 22-C which is now Fundamental Rule 22(I)(a)(1). We are concerned with the last condition. The difference in the pay of a junior and a senior in the cases before us is not as a result of the application of Fundamental Rule 22(I)(a)(1). The higher pay received by a junior is on account of his earlier officiation in the higher post because of local officiating promotions which he got in the past. The difference in the pay of a junior and a senior in the cases before us is not as a result of the application of Fundamental Rule 22(I)(a)(1). The higher pay received by a junior is on account of his earlier officiation in the higher post because of local officiating promotions which he got in the past. Because of the proviso to Rule 22 he may have earned increments in the higher pay scale of the post to which he is promoted on account of his past service and also his previous pay in the promotional post has been taken into account in fixing his pay on promotion. It is these two factors which have increased the pay of the juniors. This cannot be considered as an anomaly requiring the stepping up of the pay of the seniors.” 17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that both the junior and senior officers should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical and in the same cadre and that the scale of pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petitions, while declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioners for re-fixation of pay from the date of revision of pay scales in the year 2018, as illegal. 18. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners from the date of Revision of pay scales in the year 2018 and pass appropriate reasoned orders in accordance with respective Rules within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.