IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 7736 of 2008. Decided on: 14.6.2010. __________________________________________________ Shri Rajinder Swaroop Bhatnagar … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petitioner, who was serving as Superintending Engineer on the establishment of the respondents, particularly respondent No.2, had retired from service, as such, on 31.8.1990. He has filed and maintained the present petition for grant of the following substantive relief, vide para 7 (b) of the petition: “Direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to decide the case of the applicant within a reasonable period, as the applicant retired on 31.8.1990 and his pay was fixed in 1996 and the benefit of stepping up has not been granted till date.” 2. According to the petitioner, he was throughout ranking senior in the seniority lists prepared from time to time in the cadres of Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer and ultimately Superintending Engineer vis-à-vis his junior, Shri Dilbag Singh. Whereas, Shri Dilbag Singh was promoted as Superintending 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Engineer on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 2.1.1981, the petitioner was similarly promoted as Superintending Engineer on ad hoc basis on 21.3.1986. However, lateron on the recommendation of the review D.P.C., he was regularly promoted as Superintending Engineer on notional basis w.e.f. 31.3.1983. 3. It was against the above backdrop that the petitioner applied to the respondents for stepping up of his pay vis-à-vis his aforesaid junior, Shri Dilbag Singh. The representation submitted by the petitioner to respondent No.1 in this regard is at Annexure A-7. 4. Against the above backdrop, it need not be emphasized that since the petitioner had retired from service as far back as on 31.8.1990 and thereafter, his pay was fixed in the year 1996, but without granting the benefit of stepping up of pay to bring it to the level equal to his aforesaid junior, Shri Dilbag Singh and his representation Annexure A-7, dated December 8, 2000, which is pending disposal for the last more than nine years is required to be finally decided in accordance with law at the earliest so that the officer is not put to any further harassment. 5. In view of the above, it is directed that respondent No.1 shall decide the aforesaid representation Annexure A-7, dated December 8, 2000 in accordance with law within a period of two months from today positively after hearing the petitioner. 6. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. June 14, 2010. (cr) 3