IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 11873/2008 Reserved on: 4.1.2011 Decided on:21.2. 2011 _____________________________________________ B.L. Pathak. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. ____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that the person junior to him, namely, S.N. Vij is drawing higher salary. 2. Mrs. Ranjana Parmar has drawn the attention of the Court to office memorandum dated 25.6.2002 whereby seniority list of ministerial category (Class-III and Class-IV) (Non-Gazetted) employees, as it stood on 31.3.2001, has been notified. Petitioner is at Sr. No.1 in the seniority list 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 and Sh. S.N. Vij is at Sr. No. 2. Petitioner’s salary was fixed at Rs. 8,925/- and Mr. S.N.Vij was drawing salary of Rs. 9,200/-. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected on 1.7.2004 (Annexure A-10). It is settled law by now that senior cannot be paid lesser salary than his junior. 3. Their Lordship of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Er. Gurcharan Singh Grewal and another versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others, 2009 (1) Scale 535 have held as under: “17. Something may be said with regard to Mr. Chhabra’s submissions about the difference in increment in the scales which the appellant No.1 and Shri Shori are placed, but the same is still contrary to the settled principle of law that a senior cannot be paid lesser salary than his junior. In such circumstances, even if, there was a difference in the incremental benefits in the scale given to the appellant No.1 and the scale given to Shri Shori, such anomaly should not have been allowed to continue and ought to have been rectified so that the pay of the appellant No.1 was also stepped up to that of Shri Shori, as appears to have been done in the case of the appellant No.2” 4. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-10 dated 1.7.2004 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the petitioner step up, at par with Mr. S.N. Vij, from the due date. The arrears of 3 pay shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 21.2. 2011 *awasthi*