IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.4171-E of 2011 Date of Decision: December 7, 2011 Ashok Kumar Barsola, son of Sh. Mehar Chand, resident of village and PO Nanderh, Tehsil Kangra, District Kangra, Junior Engineer, Larji Power House, Division Thalout Distt. Mandi, H.P. ..Petitioner Versus 1. H.P. State Electricity Board, through its Executive Director (Personnel) HPSEB Ltd., Shimla-171004. 2. Accounts Officer (Pay Fixation) NG (F&A) Wing, HPSEB, Shimla-4, District Shimla. ..Respondents Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the respondents to the following effect: Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Tek Chand, Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Shahsi Shirsoo, Advocate. __________________________________________ Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) By means of present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought issuance of a direction to the respondents to refix his salary in the revised pay-scale effective from 1.1.1996, in the same manner as has the pay of an employee junior to him in the same cadre, namely Suresh Kumar Dhiman, been fixed. According to the petitioner, he is senior to said Suresh Kumar Dhiman, but while fixing pay in the revised pay scale effective from 1.1.1996, his pay was fixed at `8550, though the pay of his junior Suresh Kumar Dhiman was fixed at `8825. According to him, he being senior to said Suresh Kumar Dhiman, his pay is required to be fixed at least at the same stage at which pay of said Suresh Kumar Dhiman has been fixed. 2. In reply, it is stated by the respondents that while exercising option, petitioner though opted for switching over to the revised pay-scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996, yet he claimed that his pay was to be fixed in the revised pay- scale, after he earned increment in the pre-revised scale, while his junior did not ask for allowing the increment in the pre-revised pay-scale. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. É3É 4. Option exercised by the petitioner in the revised-scale is Annexure P-2. Option exercised by his junior Suresh Kumar Dhiman is Annexure P-3. Respondents do not dispute the genuineness of Annexures P-2 and P-3. It is nowhere written in the option of the petitioner, which is Annexure P-2, that his pay is to be fixed in the revised pay- scale, after he earns increment in the pre-revised scale. As a matter of fact, there is no reference to the pre-revised scale in option Annexure P-2. Petitioner has very categorically opted for revised scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996, with increment (which implies next increment) in the revised scale and not in the pre-revised scale. 5. In view of the above stated position, present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to fix the pay of the petitioner on par with his junior Suresh Kumar Dhiman. This direction be complied with and arrears paid to the petitioner, within four months. December 7, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.