IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 5532/2008 Decided on:30.7.2010 _____________________________________________ Bharat Singh Rana. …Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Nemo. For the Respondents: Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). It is not in dispute that the petitioner was senior to Lekh Raj Sharma, respondent No.5. However, he was getting less pay vis-à- vis respondent No.5. 2. 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: 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 “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 said 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” Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexures A-V is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to fix the pay of petitioner at par with respondent No.5 from the due date. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 30.7.2010 *awasthi*