IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 11238 of 2008. Decided on: 06.08.2010. __________________________________________________________ Trilochan Singh. … Petitioner. Versus The Principal Secretary (Education) & another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): It is not in dispute that the petitioner was senior to Shri Janak Raj Aerey. However, he was getting less pay vis-à-vis Shri Janak Raj Aerey. The case of the respondent-State, precisely, is that Shri Janak Raj Aerey has been granted three increments after acquiring higher qualification. Mr. Subhash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client has also acquired higher qualification as per Annexure P-5, dated 26.12.1996. If that is so, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for stepping up of pay since admittedly, Shri Janak Raj Aerey is junior to the petitioner and is getting higher salary. It is settled law by now that the junior cannot get higher 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - salary than the senior (see Er. Gurcharan Singh Grewal & another versus Punjab State Electricity Board & others, 2009 (1) Scale 535). 2. Consequently, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as per the discussions made hereinabove, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. August 06, 2010. (sck/k.attri).