IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 12469 of 2008. Date of Decision : May 4, 2011 Nagin Chand Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. R. Bharti, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents –State. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) From Annexure A-3 it is quite apparent that petitioner Sh. Nagin Chand joined as T.G.T. much prior to one Sh. Bhola Nath and it is also apparent that Sh. Bhola Nath is drawing higher salary than Sh. Nagin Chand. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in the seniority list circulated by the respondents pertaining to Shastri teachers, Sh. Bhola Nath was shown as junior to the petitioner and placed at Sr. No. 24 whereas petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 19. Petitioner is consequently praying for the grant of stepping-up of his pay so as to bring it at par with Sh. Bhola Nath w.e.f. 1.4.1999, date on which benefits of higher pay stand accorded. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Notice in the petition was issued on 17.3.2005. Inspite of imposition of cost three times reply was not filed. Petition was admitted on 5.4.2011 yet no reply was filed. 3. In view of the aforesaid and on the facts as stated in the petition, petition needs to be allowed. There shall be a direction to the respondents to grant the benefit of stepping-up of pay to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.4.1999 the date on which such benefits were given to Sh. Bhola Nath. The respondents are directed to re-fix the pension of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.7.2003, the date on which he retired. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment. All consequential benefits shall also be granted to the petitioner within the aforesaid period failing which, thereafter petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum. 4. However, liberty granted to the respondents to approach the Court for modification of the order if the facts as narrated by the petitioner are not found to be true and correct. 5. In view the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s) if any. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 4, 2011 (PK)