IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:2348/2008 Decided on:1.4.2009 Avtar Singh Katwal …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1.yes. For the petitioner : Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioner was allocated from the State of Punjab as Junior Engineer. He was not assigned the correct seniority according to the rules from the due date. He filed civil writ petition in this Court bearing CWP No. 19 of 1977. The writ petition was transferred to the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and it was assigned T.A. No. 394 of 1986. The same was decided by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 10.1.1991. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus: “As per paragraph 15 (A) of the reply affidavit of the State Government dated 3.5.1988, it is clear that the applicant has referred only to the revised seniority list 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes. 2 dated 19.5.1977 (Annexure PK) though a Final Joint Integrated Seniority List was issued vide letter No. PWE- ES-1708-19094 dated 26.12.1978. Keeping this in view, we further order that corresponding changes, on the basis of our directions regarding changes in the revised Joint Integrated Seniority List, as in the preceding paragraph, be made in the Final Joint Integrated Seniority List dated 26.12.1978 and that the applicant be assigned and intimated, his position in this seniority list accordingly. He would also be entitled to all consequential benefits, including promotion, due and admissible on the basis of this revised seniority in the Final Joint Integrated Seniority List. It is further directed that the requisite relief be given to the applicant within a period of three months.” The petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 19.5.1986 when his juniors were promoted. He was assigned seniority vide office addendum dated 31.10.1991. He was assigned seniority at Sr. No. 420-A and one Sh. Rakesh Kant Gupta was assigned seniority at Sr. No. 449. He came to know that Sh. Rakesh Kant Gupta, whose name appeared at Sr. No. 449 in the final joint integrated seniority list was drawing higher pay as Junior Engineer than him. He filed a representation before respondent No.2 to grant him consequential benefits including higher salary on the analogy of Sh. Rakesh Kant Gupta. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected on 7.6.1994. Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate has strenuously argued that Sh. Rakesh Kant Gupta was assigned seniority at Sr. No. 449 and the petitioner was assigned seniority at Sr. No. 420-A. He then contended that Sh. Rakesh Kant Gupta was getting higher salary than the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that Sh. Rakesh Kant Gupta was granted pre-mature increment with effect from 1.11.1966 raising his pay from Rs.130/- to Rs. 140/- under 3 FR 27. His next date of increment was 19.12.1966. This was done as per order dated 8.1.1979. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was senior to Sh. Rakesh Kant Gupta. His pay was fixed as on 1.2.1968 in the pay scale of Rs. 100-10- 300 at Rs. 150/- and in the pay scale of Rs. 200-450, his pay was fixed with effect from 1.2.1968 at Rs. 220/-. However, in the case of Sh. Rakesh Kant Gupta, his pay was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 100-10-300 at Rs. 160 as on 1.2.1968 and in the scale of Rs. 200-450 at Rs. 230 + Rs. 5/- as special pay. The only explanation given by the respondents is that Sh. Rakesh Kant Gupta has been granted pre-mature increment with effect from 1.11.1966 under FR 27. The fact of the matter is that Sh. Rakesh Kant Gupta was junior to the petitioner and was getting higher salary than the petitioner. It is settled law by now that junior cannot draw higher pay than senior. In the present case, the petitioner has been assigned seniority at Sr. No. 420-A and Sh. Rakesh Kant Gupta has been assigned seniority at Sr. No. 449. It was incumbent upon the respondent-State to step up the salary of the petitioner to remove the anomaly. The explanation given by the respondent-State that Sh. Rakesh Kant Gupta was granted pre-mature increment is not acceptable for denying the higher salary to the petitioner. The fact of the matter is that senior cannot be paid lesser salary than his junior and this principle has been reiterated by 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. Their Lordships have held as under: “Something may be said with regard to Mr. Chhabra’s submissions about the difference in increment in the 4 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” Consequently the petition is allowed. Annexure A-11 dated 7.6.1994 is quashed and set aside. The respondent-State is directed to remove the anomaly by giving benefit of stepping up to the petitioner with effect from 19.12.1966, 1.2.1968, 1.1.1978 and 1.1.1986 at par with respondent No.3 with interest @ 9% per annum. The needful be done within a period of eight weeks from today. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 1.4.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*