IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 8161/2008 Reserved on:21.7.2009 Decided on: 4.8.2009 ________________________________________________ Satish Kumar and others. …Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioners : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajindger Dogra, Addl. A.G. ________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge . By medium of this petition, the petitioners are seeking directions to the respondents to grant them initial start of Rs. 5160/- with effect from 1.1.1996 with all consequential benefits. Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has vehemently argued that his clients are entitled to the fixation in the initial pay scale of Rs. 5160/- with effect from 1.1.1996 with step up increments and the action of the respondents of fixing the petitioners 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 @ Rs. 5,000/- per month below the salary of Hans Raj, Constable, who is junior to them, is arbitrary. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the case of the petitioners was considered by the State Government and they were informed that in case they want step up of pay against their junior Hans Raj Constable then the benefit of proficiency step up has to be withdrawn vide communication dated 12.6.2001. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. The pay of the petitioners was fixed @ Rs. 4260/- with effect from 1.1.1996. The pay of Hans Raj Constable was fixed @ Rs. 4400/- with effect from 1.1.1996 on the basis of notification dated 20.1.1998. Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate has argued that this situation has arisen due to increase of the rate of increments in the master scale of Rs. 750-6700 vide notification dated 17.2.1993. He further contended that the pay of Hans Raj Constable, junior to his clients was fixed @ Rs. 1160+15 with effect from 1.1.1993. He started getting Rs. 1175/- as on 31.12.1992. The pay of the petitioners was fixed @ Rs. 1200/- with effect from 1.1.1993. They started getting the pay @ Rs. 1200/- as on 31.12.1992. The date of increment of Constable Hans Raj was 1.1.1993 and the dates of increments of the petitioners were 1.7.1993, 1.8.1993 and 1.12.1993, respectively. The pay of Constable Hans Raj was increased from Rs. 1165+15 to 1200 and by subsequent increments and proficiency step up, the pay of constable Hans Raj reached @ Rs. 1365+15 as on 31.12.1995. His pay was fixed @ 4400 as on 1.1.1996 in the revised pay scale of Rs. 3 3120-5160. The pay of the petitioners after getting normal increment, as noticed above, and proficiency step up was fixed @ Rs. 1365/- as on 31.12.1995. Their pay was fixed @ Rs. 4260 as on 1.1.1996. Hans Raj started getting higher salary vis-à-vis petitioners only on the ground that his next date of increment was 1.1.1993 and the dates of increments of the petitioners were 1.7.1993, 1.8.1993 and 1.12.1993. Due to this, his pay reached @ Rs. 1365+15 as on 31.12.1995 and the pay of the petitioners after normal increment of proficiency step up was fixed @ Rs. 1365 as on 31.12.1995. However, the fact of the matter is that the person junior to the petitioners has started receiving higher salary with effect from 31.12.1995. He was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 4400/- as on 1.1.1996 and the petitioners were fixed @ Rs. 4260/- as on 1.1.1996. It is settled law by now that senior cannot be paid lesser salary than his junior. 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 5345. 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 4 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” The anomaly, as admitted by the respondents in the reply, has arisen with effect from 1.1.1993. This was to be rectified and taken care of by the respondents themselves. The petitioners cannot be called upon to forego their proficiency step up to get the benefit of step up. It was necessary for the respondents to ensure that the petitioners who were senior get higher salary than their junior. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-1 dated 12.6.2001 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the petitioners step up from the due date i.e. with effect from 1.1.1996. The arrears of pay shall be calculated and paid to the petitioners along with interest @ 9% within a period of six weeks from today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. August 4, 2009. *awasthi*