IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 4330/2008 (OA 912/97) Date of Decision : May 7, 2009 Duni Chand Thakur. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and Others. Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?3 No For the petitioner : Mr. R.D. Kaundal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner has prayed for the following relief: “that the respondents may kindly be directed to step up the pay of the applicant w.e.f. 1.1.1989 @ Rs. 2100/- as Senior Assistant from Rs. 2050/- and @ Rs. 2600/- P.M. w.e.f. 2.1.1995 from Rs. 2510/- as Superintendent Grade-II, i.e.equal to his junior and Annexure A-12 and Annexure A-13 be quashed and set aside.” Heard learned counsel for the parties and record perused. It is admitted case of the parties, as is borne out from the affidavit filed by the respondents that w.e.f. 1.1.1989 Shri Mehant Ram Sharma, Superintendent Grade-II, person immediately junior to the petitioner was drawing pay higher than what the petitioner was drawing for the reasons that he was allowed proficiency step up after completion of 18 years of his service. Petitioner could not be allowed this benefit as he stood promoted to the higher post before the completion of 18 years of service on the lower post itself. 3 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? : 2 : By way of rejoinder, petitioner has placed on record letters dated 17.8.1990 (Annexure A-14) and 29th October, 1991 (Annexure A-15), perusal of which shows that the Government itself has clarified the anomaly which had arisen while fixing the pay scale after giving the benefit of proficiency step up. It was clarified as under: “ In cases where a Govt. employee is promoted to a higher post without availing of the benefit of one or two proficiency step up and draws a lower rate of pay in that higher post then a Government employee who is junior to him in the lower post and who has been granted proficiency step up, or promoted to another identical post, after availing the benefit of the said proficiency step up, the pay of the Government employee who is senior shall be stepped up to an amount equal to the pay drawn by the Govt. employee who is junior to him or fixed for the Govt. employees who is junior to him in that higher post and the proficiency step up (s) so granted in this process, shall be deemed to be given notionally in the lower post which he would have otherwise drawn on completion of eight years and eighteen years regular service, have not been promoted to the higher post.” In the affidavit dated 12th August, 1997, the respondents have obviously taken contradictory stand. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner’s prayer needs to be allowed. The respondents are directed to step up the pay of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1989 as Senior Assistant and w.e.f. 2.1.1995 as Superintendent Grade-II, which is equal to the scale paid to the petitioner’s junior. The respondents shall take necessry action and release the arrears within a period of three months from today, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9 % per annum. The petition is disposed of. “Dasti” (Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 7, 2009. bhupender