IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.2483 of 2021 Decided on 13th May, 2026 Sh. Ganga Ram …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned order dated 12.02.2018 contained in Annexure P-4 passed by respondent No.2 may kindly be quashed and set aside being arbitrary, illegal & discriminatory with all consequential benefits, by issuing writ of Certiorari; (ii) That the respondents/competent authority concerned may kindly be directed to extend the benefit of proficiency increment soon after completion of 4 years' service as Health Educator i.e; w.e.f. June, 2012 onwards, at par with Sh. Praveen Kumar, Health Educator and arrear be paid to the petitioner alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, by issuing writ of mandamus; 2 (iii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to revise pension, DCRG amount and Leave encashment in respect of the petitioner. The arrear amount be released alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from due date till its realization.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Male Health Worker in the year 1988 and thereafter he was promoted as a Health Educator on 04.06.2008. His grievance is that Sh. Parveen Kumar, Health Educator, who is otherwise junior to the petitioner, has been drawing more salary than him and his request for the removal of the said anomaly has been wrongly rejected by the Department. The stand of the State is that though there is an anomaly in the pay scale of the petitioner as compared to his junior but said anomaly was due to ACP granted to Sh. Praveen Kumar on 01.06.2012 and as per Government instructions dated 09.08.2012 the difference in pay of senior and junior due to ACP was not be considered as anomaly for the purpose of step-up. 3 3. Learned Additional Advocate General by placing reliance upon the reply filed by respondents and by referring to Para-7 and 8 thereof submitted that in light of the fact that the anomaly is on account of the grant of ACP to the junior incumbents, the petitioner cannot claim stepping up of his pay and, therefore, the rejection of his prayer by the respondents is sustainable. He has also submitted that the request of the petitioner was rejected on 12.02.2018, yet, he has filed the petition after three years from the date of rejection of his claim. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. It is not in dispute that there is a pay anomaly in the pay of the petitioner as compared to the pay of his junior. This fact is admitted by the respondent-Department also. They justify the act of not removing the anomaly by submitting that as the anomaly is on account of the grant of ACP to the junior, therefore, the same is not to be treated as an anomaly. 4 6. The issue as to whether an anomaly in pay created on account of grant of ACP to a junior has to be removed by stepping up the pay of the senior is no more res-integra. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Civil Appeal Nos.2087-2088 of 2022, titled Union of India and others versus Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy and another, decided on 06.04.2022, has been pleased to hold that where a junior as drawing more pay on account of up-gradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme and there was an anomaly, the pay of the senior was required to be stepped up. This being the legal position, the contention of the Department that the pay anomaly between the pay of the petitioner and the junior is not to be treated as an anomaly is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others versus Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy and another (supra) was pleased to hold in Para-6 thereof as under:- “The facts are not much in dispute. It is an admitted case that there is a pay anomaly vis-à-vis the pay of the petitioner and the private respondent. It is also not in dispute that the private respondent is junior to the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that because there is a pay anomaly, the same has to be removed and his pay should be stepped up. The stand of the respondents is that because the junior is 5 drawing more pay on account of the benefit granted to him under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, the same cannot be treated as a pay anomaly in terms of the instructions issued by the Finance Department and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim stepping up of his pay.” 7 In the backdrop of the said adjudication by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, because, the ground on which the Department has refused the stepping up of the pay of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law, this petition is allowed. The act of the respondents of not stepping up the pay of the petitioner to bring it at par with his junior is held to be bad in law and the rejection of his pay in terms of Annexure P-4 is also quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to step up the pay of the petitioner and bring it at par with the incumbent junior to him from the date when the anomaly took place till the date it continued. Needful be done within three months from today. 8. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate that as the petitioner had assailed his rejection after a considerable delay, the petition is hit by delay and laches is also not accepted by the Court, because, herein, the anomaly 6 in pay continued even after the rejection of the case of the petitioner and in the considered view of this Court, the same constitutes a recurring cause and, therefore, the petitioner had a right to agitate the same. 9. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 13, 2026 (Vinod)