IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 13133 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: August 26, 2009 SI Mahipal .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and Others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. R.R. Dhawan, Advocate, for the petitioner. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) This civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to step up the pay of the petitioner equivalent to his junior SI Kewal Krishan. Learned counsel states that a perusal of Annexure P-2 makes it evident that the petitioner was drawing Rs. 8,925/- on 01.04.2008 whereas a person junior to the petitioner namely SI Kewal Krishan was drawing Rs. 9,200/- on 01.02.2008 as is made out from Annexure P-3. The claim of the petitioner is for pay at least equal to the one drawn by his junior. Learned counsel has pointed out that a legal notice had been issued to the respondents on this ground, however, no response thereto has been received. Learned counsel contends that the case would be covered by judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 2009 (1) Supreme C.W.P. No. 13133 of 2009 -2- Court Cases (L & S) 578, Gurcharan Singh Grewal and Another Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Others wherein the following has been held in para nos. 17 to 19:- “17. Something may be said with regard to Mr. Chhabra's submissions about the difference in increment in the scales in which Appellant 1 and Shri Shori are placed, but the same is still contrary to the settled principle of law that a senior cannot be paid a lesser salary than his junior. In such circumstances, even if there was a difference in the incremental benefits in the scale given to Appellant 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 Appellant 1 was also stepped up to that of Shri Shori, as appears to have been done in the case of Appellant 2. 18. We are unable to accept the reasoning of the High Court in this regard or the submissions made in support thereof by Mr. Chhabra, since the very object to be achieved is to bring the pay scale of Appellant 1 on a par with that of his junior. We are clearly of the opinion that the reasoning of the High Court was erroneous and Appellant 1 was also entitled to the same benefits of pay parity with Shri Shori as has been granted to Appellant 2. 19. We, accordingly, allow the appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court. Consequently, the writ petition is also allowed and the respondents are directed to C.W.P. No. 13133 of 2009 -3- extend the benefits of pay parity with Shri Shori to Appellant 1, as was done in the case of Appellant 2. I find that the petitioner has been able to make a prima facie case. The respondents are required to take a decision on the legal notice served on behalf of the petitioner placed on record as Annexure P-1 dated 26.06.2009. The petitioner retired. The pension of the petitioner would accordingly be required to be refixed. This petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents to consider the effect of Supreme Court Judgment rendered in Gurcharan Singh Grewal's case (supra) in the context of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the averments made in the legal notice. Decision on the legal notice be taken within three months of receipt of certified copy of the order. 26.08.2009 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?