IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No.: 122 of 2009 Date of Decision: 15.05.2010 State of H.P. …Appellant Versus. Avtar Singh Kutwal and another …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. For the appellants.: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. Adv. General. For the respondent No.1.: Mr. Dharam Paul Gupta, Advocate. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.(Oral) 1. This appeal is filed by the State against the judgement dated 1.4.2009 in CWP (T) No.2348 of 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. The writ petitioner approached the Tribunal praying for stepping up of his pay with that of junior-proforma respondent in the writ petition. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is at serial number 420-A and the said proforma respondent, namely, Rakesh Kant Gupta, is only at serial number 449 in the seniority list. According to Shri R.K.Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, the junior was drawing higher pay on account of advance increment. The matter is explained at ground “d” as follows:- “……. It is further submitted that the applicant/respondent was appointed as J.E. in the pay scale of Rs.100-10-140/10-230/10-300 2 w.e.f. 20.7.62 and he was drawing pay at the rate of Rs.140/- p.m w.e.f.20.7.66. Whereas proforma respondent No.2 Sh. Rakesh Kant Gupta was appointed as J.E. in the similar scale w.e.f.19.12.1962 and he was also drawing basic pay at the rate of Rs.140/- p.m w.e.f.19.12.1966 in view of decision taken by the HP.Govt vide letter No.1-54-74-PWD (Part) dated 20.6.78 which state that all the allocated J.Es whose basic pay was less than Rs.140/- p.m as on 1.11.1966 were required to be fixed at basic pay of Rs.140/- p.m w.e.f.1.11.1966. Since the proforma respondent No.2 (Rakesh Kant Gupta) was drawing less pay on 1.11.1966 as such his basic pay was fixed at Rs.140/- pm w.e.f.1.11.1966 in accordance with the decision of the HP Govt. dated 20.6.1978 with next date of increment on 19.12.1966 under FR 27 with the approval of Govt. vide Secretary (PW) letter No.1-54/71 PWD (Part) dated 8.1.1979. In this case the higher rate of pay being drawn by the proforma respondent No.2 Sh. Rakesh Kant Gupta is not a result of appreciation of FR 22-3 but by virtue of granting gracious increment under FR-27, that too, with the approval of the competent authority as such this does not result an anomaly for the purpose of seeking stepping up by the applicant/respondent Sh.Avtar Singh…………..” 3. On account of very same approach the writ petitioner is entitled to higher pay as granted to his junior Rakesh Kant Gupta. It is not as if the said Rakesh Kant Gupta got advantage of higher pay on account of proficiency increment or special qualification. The higher pay is only in the normal course of the employment. If that be so, as rightly held by the learned single Judge the case is squarely covered by the decision of the 3 Supreme Court in Er. Gurcharan Singh Grewal and another vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, 2009 (1) Scale 535. 4. Thus there is no merit in the appeal and is accordingly dismissed. In case the judgement passed in the writ petition has not been implemented so far only on account of Letters Patent Appeal the same shall be implemented within a period of one month from today and the eligible benefits also be disbursed to the petitioner within one month from the production of the copy of this judgement. In case the amount is not disbursed to the petitioner the arrears shall carry interest @ 10% from the date of the filing of the application before the Tribunal and the Officer responsible for the delay will be held personally liable for the same. Dasti copy. ( Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. 15th May, 2010. (Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.