IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2196/2008 Reserved on: 24.8.2010 Decided on:30.8. 2010 _____________________________________________ Daya Nand Verma. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner is seeking pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 with effect from 1.7.1986. He started working as Assistant with effect from 23.7.1971. He was promoted as Senior Assistant with effect from 28.2.1984. S/Shri Sudama Ram, S.S. Saini and Durga Dutt, all juniors to the petitioner, were promoted as Assistant Superintendent (Treasury) with effect from 14.11.1985, 21.11.1985 and 11.12.1985, respectively. Similarly, Ishwar Chand, Bansi Lal and Hari Singh were promoted as Assistant Superintendent (Treasury) with effect from 9.4.1987 and 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 21.9.1987, respectively. The pay scales of Assistant/Senior Assistant/Assistant Superintendent (Treasury)/ Assistant Treasury Officer were Rs. 160-400, Rs. 225-500, Rs. 225-500 and Rs. 300- 600 prior to 1.1.1978. The pay scales of these categories were revised after 1.1.1978 to Rs. 570-1080, Rs. 600-1120, Rs. 620- 1200 and Rs. 750-1300. The post of Assistant Superintendent was re-designated as Superintendent Grade-IV. The pay scales were further revised with effect from 1.1.1986 and the post of Assistant was clubbed with the post of Senior Assistant and it was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200. The Assistant Superintendents (Treasury) were granted the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 and the post was re-designated as Superintendent Grade-II. The pay scale of Assistant Treasury Officer was revised to Rs. 2000-3500 and the post was re-designated as Treasury Officer. 2. Ms. Ranjana Parmar has strenuously argued that though his client was promoted to the post of Treasury Officer before one Sh. Sudama Ram, S.S. Saini and Durga Dutt, however, his client is getting less pay than his juniors. She has further contended that it is settled law that junior cannot draw higher salary than his senior. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously argued that there was no parity of pay scales in this case with effect from 1.1.1978 and thereafter with effect from 1.1.1986 as far as the posts of Senior Assistant and Assistant Superintendent (Treasury) are concerned. According to him, Assistants were re-designated as Senior Assistants and placed in 3 the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 and Assistant Superintendents (Treasury) were re-designated as Superintendent Grade-II and were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Ms. Ranjana Parmar has drawn the attention of the Court to seniority list of the Treasury Officers, as it stood on 31.1.1991, notified on 7.9.1991. Petitioner is at Sr. No. 49 and his date of appointment as Treasury Officer is 24.2.1988. S/Shri Sudama Ram, S.S. Saini and Durga Dutt have been appointed as Treasury Officer on 30.3.1989 and 19.4.1989, respectively. However, these three persons are getting higher salary than the petitioner though they are junior to the petitioner, as Treasury Officer. It is settled law that senior cannot be paid less than his junior. 6. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh Grewal and another versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others, (2009) 3 SCC 94 have held that senior cannot be paid less than his junior even if anomaly in senior’s pay is due to difference of incremental benefits. Their Lordships have directed that the salary of the senior be stepped up with reference to higher pay of junior. Their Lordships 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 4 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” 7. In the instant case, there was a parity of pay scales of the posts of Senior Assistant and Assistant Superintendent (Treasury) before 1.1.1978. The same has been disturbed with effect from 1.1.1978 and with effect from 1.1.1986. However, the fact of the matter is that petitioner is senior to the persons, mentioned hereinabove, as Treasury Officer. There is a gap of more than two years. In these circumstances, the representation made by the petitioner ought not to have been rejected on 25.5.1993. The same is declared illegal and arbitrary. 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure PA dated 25.5.1993 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to step up the salary of the petitioner vis-à-vis his juniors from the due date with all the consequential benefits. Needful be done within a period of ten weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 30.8. 2010 *awasthi*