C.W.P No. 8564 of 1988 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 8564 of 1988 Date of decision : March 30, 2009 Ram Kumar, ...... Petitioner (s) v. The State of Haryana and another, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. K.S.Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.K.Gupta, Addl.A.G Haryana for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J This writ petition has been filed challenging the fixation of pay of the petitioner on the ground that persons junior to him viz. Salig Ram and Smt. Shakuntla Chhabra have been granted higher pay scales. However, learned counsel for the petitioner could not controvert the fact that the aforesaid persons had joined much earlier to the petitioner as Clerk, albeit in the field office. When they were absorbed in the head office, a condition was imposed that they would not get any benefit of their past service towards seniority. Consequently, they were placed below the petitioner. C.W.P No. 8564 of 1988 ::2:: However, the loss of seniority would not entail loss of other service benefits like pay. It was in these circumstances that their pay was fixed higher than that of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in Ishwar Chand Walia vs State of Haryana and others, 2001(3) RSJ 241, wherein a Division Bench of this Court held as follows :- “8. In the present case in hand, admittedly, the petitioner not only is in the same cadre but is also senior to respondent No.4 Laxmi Chand. The petitioner had been promoted before respondent No.4. If there was any anomaly in refixation of the salary of the petitioner vis-a- vis respondent No.4, it should have been decided at the earliest rather than permit the petitioner to rush to the Court. When the petitioner is drawing less salary than his juniors then there must have been some cogent reasons. No such cogent reasons are forthcoming. When the petitioner is getting less salary than his juniors, necessarily he would be entitled to step up of the salary. The same principle was echoed in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. P.Jagdish, 1997(2) Service Cases Today 664, wherein it was held that when a government servant is promoted or appointed, the principle of stepping up should be done. The pay of the senior officer is required to be stepped up to a figure equivalent to the pay as fixed for the junior.” In my opinion however, the reliance on the above judgment is C.W.P No. 8564 of 1988 ::3:: misplaced because in that case the petitioner therein was senior to other employees in terms of length of service. As noticed above, the position herein is different. Consequently, I find no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed with, however, no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 30, 2009. JUDGE `kk'