There is no doubt that a person who seeks promotion also seeks betterment of pay and benefits that may accrue on such a promotion, otherwise the promotion becomes a hollow and empty concept. It is also not disputed that the Fisherman-cum-Watchman is a post which is two steps lower to the posts held by the petitioners, and the post of Field Assistant is a inter mediatory to which post of Fisherman-cum-Watchman can be promoted after he fulfills the requisite conditions prescribed in the rules and likewise, a Field Assistant can become a Farm Assistant on the basis of the qualifications and eligibility conditions prescribed under the rules. A particular service may entail certain additional benefits which a person when promoted may not be entitled to, as it may be contingent upon the nature of the job which is being performed, for example, a person who is required to go to the field in connection with his duties, may require certain level of mobility and may also require some incentive to carry out the duties in the field and the employer is, thus, well within his rights to provide such an additional benefit(s) to an employee. The person so promoted cannot make a grievance of such allowance and say that since a person lower in rank to him has been granted the benefits, such as cycle allowance and washing allowance, it has affected his pay vis a vis such employee and that he is prejudiced. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is seemingly mis placed. However, at the same time, it is noticed with concern that the pay scale after revision is equated with the post of the Fisherman and this does not justify the anomaly from any angle. Both are carrying the pay of 4440-7440, and thus a person is promoted from Fisherman Field Assistant and later as Farm Assistant is likely to be prejudicially affected
