IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 6058/2008 Reserved on: 14.7.2010 Decided on:20.7. 2010 _____________________________________________ Rikhi Ram Chauhan. …Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate ____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the respondent-Board on 3.8.1967. Respondent-Board issued final joint seniority list of Circle Assistants/Accountants/Clerks/ Upper Division Clerks (Circle Cadre) as on 2.5.1967 on 31.5.1972. Petitioner’s name figures at Sr. No.52 and name of one Sh. Sukh Ram Kaushal 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 figures at Sr. No.59. Thereafter another provisional seniority list of Section Officer in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500, as it stood on 30.6.1990, was issued. The name of the petitioner figures at Sr. No. 23 whereas Sh. Sukh Ram Kaushal figures at Sr. No. 32. Petitioner was confirmed as Circle Scale Superintendent with effect from 1.1.1990 and Sh. Sukh Ram Kaushal was confirmed with effect from 1.11.1990. However, petitioner was drawing less pay than Sh. Sukh Ram Kaushal. He made a representation seeking stepping up of his pay vis-à-vis Sh. Sukh Ram Kaushal. Matter remained under correspondence as per Annexures A-4 and A-5. The pay of the petitioner was revised on 5.10.1993 vide Annexure A-6, however, the same was not correct. Petitioner made representation to the competent authority for the redressal of his grievance. He has also annexed comparative chart of his pay vis-a-vis Sh. Sukh Ram Kaushal, who was junior to him. He has retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.1.1994. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he was entitled to stepping up of his pay vis-à-vis Sh. Sukh Ram Kaushal by granting him the benefit of FR 22 (c) now FR 22 (a) (i). Precise case of the respondent-Board is that the pay of Sh. Sukh Ram Kaushal was stepped up with effect from 25.6.1969 at par with his junior Sh. Lal Chand Gupta. 3 Mrs. Ranjana Parmar has strenuously argued that it is settled law by now that junior cannot get higher salary than the senior. She has also contended that the case of her client is covered under FR 22 (c) now 22 (a) (i). Ms. Anjula Khajuria has vehemently argued that the present petition is belated and the pay of the petitioner cannot be stepped up as per FR 22 (a) (i). She has also contended that the persons, according to the seniority list, between petitioner and Sukh Ram Kaushal have not been arrayed as party and in case the benefit is granted to the petitioner, it will open the Pandora’s box. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is senior to Sh. Sukh Ram Kaushal as per Annexures A-1 and A-2, respectively. He was confirmed before Sh. Sukh Ram Kaushal. He was confirmed on 1.1.1990 and Sh. Sukh Ram Kaushal was confirmed on 1.11.1990. However, Sh. Sukh Ram Kaushal has been given step up vis-à-vis Lal Chand Gupta under FR 22 (c). The effect of granting step up to Sh. Sukh Ram Kaushal vis-à-vis Lal Chand Gupta was that though the petitioner was senior but he was drawing less pay than Sh. Sukh Ram Kaushal, who was junior to him. The matter was kept under consideration by the respondent- 4 Board for a considerable period. A bare perusal of Annexure A-4 dated 13.11.1992 reveals that his case was recommended by the Accounts Officer. The Accounts Officer has referred to FR 27. In fact, the Accounts Officer had also recommended to confer the benefit under FR 27 to all the juniors to bring their salary at par (supra) at par with Sh. Sukh Ram Kaushal. The petitioner has given the comparative chart of his pay vis-à-vis Sukh Ram Kaushal. However, the fact of the matter is that no final decision was taken and the petitioner has superannuated on 31.1.1994. Once the respondent-Board had decided to step up the pay of Sh. Sukh Ram Kaushal vis-à-vis Lal Chand Gupta, there was no reason why the same treatment has not been given to the petitioner. Petitioner being senior was entitled to get salary at par with his junior Sh. Sukh Ram Kauhsal. His case was covered under FR 22 (c) now 22 (a) (i). There is no merit in the contention of Ms. Anjula Khajuria that in case the benefit is granted to the petitioner, it will lead to endless chain of claims. Respondent-Board has to take a decision in accordance with law irrespective of the fact that the similarly situate persons have claimed the benefit or not. It is settled law by now that a junior person cannot get higher pay than the senior. 5 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: “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” Similarly, there is no merit in the contention of Ms. Anjula Khajuria that the present petition is belated. It is settled law by now that to get a salary is a continuous cause of action. Petitioner’s pension has also been affected since he has not been given the benefit of stepping up. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for stepping up of his pay at par with Sh. Sukh Ram Kaushal from the due 6 date with all the consequential benefits. Needful be done within a period of 8 weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 20.7. 2010 *awasthi*