ORDER : 1. The petitioners are the employees of the second and third respondents-Corporations. There are two categories in the employees of the Corporations, namely, workmen and non-workmen. While the wages revision for the workmen is usually settled through the memorandum of settlement entered by the Employees Union and the second and third respondents-Managements under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The pay for non-workmen will be revised in accordance with the pay revision provisions. 2. On 12.12.2012, a settlement came into effect by giving notional effect for the period between 01.01.2007 to 31.12.2008 and thereafter, by giving actual benefits. Persons who are workmen as on 01.01.2007 and who have been promoted as officers before or after the settlement dated 12.12.2012 are entitled to benefits of settlement till the time they were working in the capacity of workmen. 3. There is a change in working hours for workmen with effect from 16.01.2013 and the said clause also forms part of the settlement. As per the said change in working hours, the work hours have been increased and in view of that, an additional amount of 6% of basic pay is added to workmen from the date of implementation. Clause 9.2 of the settlement would state that the fitment benefits as on 21.12.2006 and as seen under clause 6.0 will be implemented with an additional amount of 6% of the additional basic pay. 4. The above benefit can be availed only by those who continue to remain as workmen on 16.01.2013. This is the date from which the revised working hours is being implemented. Even though these petitioners continued to be workmen as on 01.01.2007 and got the benefit of settlement, they have been promoted before 16.01.2013 and hence, they are not entitled to 6% of additional basic pay revision for fitment of revised pay. 5. So those workmen, who had the benefit of 6% in accordance with Clause 9.2 and who got promotion to officer after 16.01.2013, were getting pay more than the workmen who have been promoted as officers prior to 16.01.2013. In other words, persons who were junior to petitioners were drawing more pay than the petitioners who were seniors to them. 6. The petitioners have submitted various representations to address the anomaly by seeking to step-up their pay. Although assurances were given regarding the implementation of the pay revision, no action was taken. In other words, persons who were junior to petitioners were drawing more pay than the petitioners who were seniors to them. 6. The petitioners have submitted various representations to address the anomaly by seeking to step-up their pay. Although assurances were given regarding the implementation of the pay revision, no action was taken. Therefore, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition, seeking a direction to the respondents to rectify the disparity and to ensure that the issue is resolved within a stipulated time frame. 7. Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that, extending the special benefit of 6% as one-time settlement only to certain group of workmen is arbitrary and violative of right to equality prescribed under Article 14 of Constitution of India. 8. As the petitioners were promoted from workmen category from 2007 to 2012, they are deprived to get the special benefit of 6% increase. The respondents had also accepted the existence of anomaly between juniors and seniors and replied to the representation given by the petitioners and reassured the petitioners that the grievance will be redressed. Since the respondents were providing hope to the petitioners repeatedly, the petitioners did not file any writ petitions sofar. Only when petitioners realized that the assurance given by the respondents are just namesake, they have filed this Writ Petition seeking the relief of stepping up of their pay. 9. The special benefit given under clause 9.2 is not merely based on the cadre, but also due to revised working hours implemented from 16.01.2013. In fact, the petitioners have also been working under revised working hours from October 2012, but were not given with any additional benefit. Even though the petitioners are occupying higher designations, they are drawing lesser salary than their juniors. 10. Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners cited judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurucharan Singh Gravel vs. Punjab State Electric board and Another, (2009) 3 SCC 94 , wherein it has been observed that it is a settled principle of law that a senior cannot be paid lesser salary than his junior and the said anomaly can be corrected by having the pay of seniors stepped up to that of juniors. The same principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs C.R. Madhava Murthy, (2022) 6 SCC 183 . 11. The same principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs C.R. Madhava Murthy, (2022) 6 SCC 183 . 11. In fact, the Apex Court in C.R. Madhava Murthy’s case held that if any special pay was received by junior, but not senior and if the senior has been promoted to the next level before the introduction of such special pay in the feeder cadre post and if that resulted in anomaly when the juniors are promoted, the seniors are entitled to stepping up of their pay to a figure equal to the pay of their juniors from the date when the juniors got their promotion and drew the higher pay. 12. Mr. AR.L.  Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioners cannot claim parity with the other workmen who had put additional working hours while they were working as workmen. There is no violation of principle of equality as claimed. The benefit was allowed just to compensate the workmen who needed to work additional hours with effect from 16.01.2013, over and above the working hours prior to the settlement. 13. The working hours for the officers were increased from October 2012 and for that they have been given with the additional benefit of 36 days encashable compensatory off. The same is in line with the benefit received by employees of Indian Oil Corporation Limited who have 48 hours work per week and the same has been extended to all the officers including the petitioners. Except the special benefit of 6% under Clause 9.2, the petitioners were also provided with other benefit from 01.01.2007 till they were posted as officers. The special benefit granted for the special nature of work cannot be claimed on the principles of anomaly. 14. Further the service rules of the second and third respondents- Corporations do not have specific rules for stepping up the anomaly and hence, the petitioners are not entitled to get relief of stepping up of pay on par with their juniors. The petitioners were promoted well before their counterparts. Hence, the right to enjoy 6% additional benefit is not vested on them. 15. The petitioners were promoted well before their counterparts. Hence, the right to enjoy 6% additional benefit is not vested on them. 15. As the benefit has been allowed to workmen category, which is altogether a different and distinct class than the officers, the petitioners cannot claim parity based on 6% special pay allowed to the workmen, which resulted in increase of their pay after they got promoted. 16. In support of the above contention the learned Additional Solicitor General cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others vs O.P. Saxena, (1997) 6 SCC 360 . In the said judgment, it has been held that when the feeder cadre post of junior and senior were different, the principle of stepping up cannot be applied, but in the instant case, there is no difference in cadre, and that was not the cause for the anomaly. The same principle is followed by the Supreme Court in Surendra Kumar vs. Union of India and Others, (2005) 2 SCC 313 , which tried to make distinction between parties in Saxena's case , but Supreme Court did not accept the same and dismissed the appeal. 17. In yet another case of Union of India vs. R. Swaminathan, (1997) 7 SCC 690 , it has been held that if a junior gets opportunity of local and ad-hoc promotion and on account of that, if higher pay is drawn by a junior, the senior employee who gets regular promotion earlier than such junior cannot claim parity of pay because the difference in pay has arisen as junior had opportunity of officiating the promotional post on ad-hoc basis before he gets the regular promotion as his previous service in promoted post has to be taken into account; as his previous ad-hoc service in promoted post has caused the anomaly, the senior who got promotion earlier than the ad-hoc promotees cannot claim parity. 18. In the said case, the Supreme Court has laid down three conditions, for the senior to claim stepping up of pay. The appropriate paragraph of the said case is extracted under. "10. .... 18. In the said case, the Supreme Court has laid down three conditions, for the senior to claim stepping up of pay. The appropriate paragraph of the said case is extracted under. "10. .... (10) Removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay of Senior on Promotion drawing less pay than his junior.--(a) As a result of application of F.R. 22-C. In order to remove the anomaly of a Government servant promoted or appointed to a higher post on or after in that post than another Government servant junior to him in the lower grade and promoted or appointed in the lower grade and promoted or appointed subsequently to another identical post, it has been of the decided that such cases the pay of the senior officer in the higher post should be stepped upto a figure equal to the pay as fixed for the junior officer in that higher post. The stepping up should be done with effect from the date of promotion or appointment of the junior officer and will be subject to the following conditions. namely:- (a) 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: (b) The scale of pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical: (c) the anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of F.R. 22-C. 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 above provisions will not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior officer." 19. The same principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others vs. Sushil Kumar Paul and Others, (1998) 5 SCC 268 . The Supreme Court has held in Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Another vs. Sujit Baran Mukherjee and Others, (1997) 11 SCC 463 that stepping up the pay on par with the junior would arise only on a rational basis. The Supreme Court has held in Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Another vs. Sujit Baran Mukherjee and Others, (1997) 11 SCC 463 that stepping up the pay on par with the junior would arise only on a rational basis. It is further held that only when they discharge same duty and hold the same responsibility, the senior can claim stepping up of pay; if they happen to work in different circumstances and if the junior draws higher pay on promotion and seniors, who did not get the similar opportunity, cannot claim parity of pay with the seniors. 20. By citing the above judgment, the learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the senior who got promoted did not have the opportunity to work as workmen during the enhanced working hours and hence, they cannot claim parity of pay with the juniors who got higher pay in view of the benefit of enhanced pay accrued to the juniors due to 6% special pay benefit attached to the enhanced work hours as workmen. So, it is stated that the juniors who got higher pay had put onerous duty outside the normal duty hours while they were working as workmen. 21. Settlements which used to bring certainty and quietus to an issue, in this case has strangely brought an another unsettlement. While adopting Clause 9.2 in the 18(a) Settlement dated 12.12.2012, the second and third respondents-Managements would not have foreseen such an eventuality. 22. The second and third respondents-Corporations have introduced additional working hours from 16.01.2013 for the workmen. The same was adopted for their officers from October 2012. The officers, who are the petitioners herein, were originally belonged to the workmen category and thereafter elevated as officers due to promotion. 23. Clause 16.0 of the Settlement dated 12.12.2012 has introduced revised working hours, which extended the working hours for the workmen with effect from 16.01.2013. Clause 9.2 of the Settlement ensures an additional amount of 6% of the revised basic pay, which can be added to the basic pay. This is a reward for the revised working hours pattern introduced from 16.01.2013. This happened to be a boon for those, who have got their promotion from workmen cadre to officer cadre after 16.01.2013. In view of the 6% additional basic pay revision, they got a better pay in the promotional post than their seniors. This is a reward for the revised working hours pattern introduced from 16.01.2013. This happened to be a boon for those, who have got their promotion from workmen cadre to officer cadre after 16.01.2013. In view of the 6% additional basic pay revision, they got a better pay in the promotional post than their seniors. Those persons, who got their promotions in the post of officers before 16.01.2013 and who did not get the 6% additional basic pay when they were workmen, continued to get a lower pay than their junior. This has obviously created an anomaly between the juniors and the seniors in the matter of pay. 24. The Learned Additional Solicitor General by citing a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Swaminathan, (1997) 7 SCC 690 , has submitted that for the purpose of claiming anomaly, both the juniors and the senior employees should belong to the same cadre and post and the scale of pay for the lower and higher post, in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical and the anomaly should be directly as a result of application of Fundamental Rule 22(C) of the Rules. The above position of law held by the Supreme Court in the above case is applicable to its own facts and also for similar circumstances arose due to FR 22(C) position. In other words, only when someone claims the pay anomaly for the reasons of FR 22(C), the condition with respect to FR 22(C) shall apply. 25. There are conditions other than FR 22(C), which can also create anomaly and for which the Service Rules normally permit stepping up of pay. The anomaly situation can also result during pay revision in the Government Sector whenever orders are issued by accepting the Pay Commission recommendations. There may be several reasons for the anomaly to occur in any service of employees. 26. In the instant case, the employees claim anomaly in the officer's post only. Both the junior and senior are accommodated in the same officer post and they perform same functions. There is no difference in the lower and higher post of the petitioners and their counter parts after they are inducted into the officer's cadre. 27. In the case on hand, the anomaly has occurred because of the higher pay drawn by the persons, who were working as workmen. There is no difference in the lower and higher post of the petitioners and their counter parts after they are inducted into the officer's cadre. 27. In the case on hand, the anomaly has occurred because of the higher pay drawn by the persons, who were working as workmen. In fact, the scheme of revision of work hours by enhancing the work hours was not only implemented in respect of the workmen, but it has also been effected for the officers category also. But they were not given additional pay in view of the enhanced working hours. 28. Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the officers are compensated by allowing them to encash an additional 36 days leave for the enhanced working hours. 29. Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the above benefit is extraneous to the enhanced working hours and it is just an encashment of earned leave benefit available in certain services. 30. Whatever may be the nature of the leave permissible for encashment, the fact remains that the same benefit is going to be extended to all the workmen who have got their promotion after 16.01.2013 also. Irrespective of the similarities of the nature of the work, the pay anomaly exists. The persons who have got their promotion after 16.01.2013 are at a better advantage even though they were juniors to the persons like the petitioners, who are already working in that cadre. 31. Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the anomaly is justified for the new promotees as they have got their pay benefit in view of their onerous duty rendered as workmen, by working beyond the usual working hours. At the risk of repetition, it is reiterated that the work conditions of both the senior and the juniors in the present cadre are one and the same. The petitioners do not claim parity by comparing themselves with the juniors at the time when they were working as workmen. They claim anomaly only after the juniors got promotion and became officers. So the question of onerous duty or different responsibility does not come into play in the given situation. 32. Anomalies sometimes surface in the Government Services also while implementing the pay revision in accordance with the Pay Commission recommendations. They claim anomaly only after the juniors got promotion and became officers. So the question of onerous duty or different responsibility does not come into play in the given situation. 32. Anomalies sometimes surface in the Government Services also while implementing the pay revision in accordance with the Pay Commission recommendations. One instance of this is the anomaly arising out of the revision of pay for those who have got selection grade and special grade, when their juniors ordinary scale becomes similar in the revised pay. In such situations, the Government usually takes a call by issuing orders to alleviate anomaly along with the heartburn among the employees. 33. The second and third respondents-corporations ought to have taken a call once they could come to know the pay anomaly between the juniors and the seniors in view of the policy adopted by them in respect of their workmen. Even though the respondents felt the necessity and had given assurance by appreciating the fairness is the petitioners' demand, they have turned indifferent later. This has necessitated the petitioners to knock at the doors of the Court. 34. The absence of rules does not prevent the petitioners from claiming fundamental fairness and equity in the matter of pay. Though, this may not be a direct case for unequal pay for equal work, there is a constructive denial of equal pay for the seniors like the petitioners by placing their juniors in an unequitable pay fixtures. So the second and third respondents ought to have risen up to the occasion to fulfill their equality obligation without taking advantage of the absence of rules. 35. In the absence of any rules, the petitioners remedy will flow from the principles of natural justice. As fairness is the essential feature of natural justice, the petitioners cannot be denied the relief by citing the absence of rules. 36. In the case on hand, I find no acceptable reason for the anamoly to exist unchecked. Hence, it has to be rectified by adopting the mechanism of stepping up of pay of the seniors to that of the juniors. Failure to do so will not only result in injustice, but also demoralize one set of the workforce and they will blame themselves for getting the early promotion. 37. Hence, it has to be rectified by adopting the mechanism of stepping up of pay of the seniors to that of the juniors. Failure to do so will not only result in injustice, but also demoralize one set of the workforce and they will blame themselves for getting the early promotion. 37. In the service law jurisprudence, promotion in any service is often viewed as a career progress, which brings not only an up-liftment in the cadre, but also a raise in the pay commensurating to the promoted post. If the promotional post does not carry such benefits, there will not be any anxiety or aspiration in the minds of the employees to climb up in the career ladder. 38. Only because the promotional avenues ensure positional enhancement and financial improvement, every employee is in the race to get an early promotion. If the service rules for promotion mandates any additional qualification or any other eligibility criteria, the employees would have the urge to acquire those qualifications and be ready for the promotion. If the promotion does not come with these benefits, but makes the employee feel sad for getting promoted, no one will compete to get promoted and there will be a complacency in everyone's mind to settle in the lower cadre itself. To put it shortly, the promotion should be a boon and not a bane. 39. So the second and third respondents need not wait to adopt the well- established principle of fairness for stepping up of the pay of the seniors to that of the juniors in the same cadre. 40. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and the third respondent is directed to rectify the pay anomaly of the petitioners arising out of Clause 9.2 of the settlement deed dated 12.12.2012 and consequently, fix the pay of the petitioners on par with their juniors who were promoted subsequently, i.e., on or after 16.01.2013 and to pay arrears to the petitioners along with interest at the rate of 4% per annum and pass orders to that effect within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs.