IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.4651 of 2024 Decided on 22nd June, 2026 Sh. Amar and others …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Ravinder Singh Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) That the respondent department may kindly be directed to implement the directions so passed by the Hon’ble HP State Administrative Tribunal in OA No.4882/2015 dated 16.12.2015 i.e. Annexure P-4. ii) That the impugned office order dated 23.08.2023 i.e. Annexure P-13 whereby the claim of the petitioners has been rejected by the respondent-Department may be set aside and quashed being illegal and unconstitutional with further direction to the respondent department to pay of the senior petitioners may be stepped up from the due date when the juniors are drawing more salary than the petitioners. 2 iii) The petitioners may be allowed all arrears and interest on arrears from due date and the pay of the petitioners from due date may also be re- fixed properly taking into account the step up.” 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by Annexure P-13, office order dated 23.08.2023, in terms whereof, the case of the petitioners for stepping up of their pay to bring it at par with their juniors has been rejected by assigning the reasons mentioned therein:- “Ο.Α. Νο 4882/2015 titled as Arun Dutt Sharma and others V/S State of HP & others was decided vide order dated 16.12.2015, by the Hon'ble erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla, wherein it had been directed that "the respondent/competent authority to extend the benefit of the judgment In CWP (T) No. 8161 of 2008, Satish Kumar and others versus state of Himachal Pradesh and others decided on 04.08.2009 to the applicants in OA No. 7444/2018, in case they are similarly situated." Consequent upon direction of erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal the matter after consideration was taken up with the Govt. of H.P. The matter was under active consideration and the Govt. of H.P. vide letter No. Home (A) E (3)-38/2016 dated 03.09.2019 w.r.t. this office letter No. Fin.7/Court Matter/Misc/11-25698-97 dated 27.07.2019 has intimated that "the matter has been examined at the Government level, in consultation with the Finance Department and after thorough examination, It is conveyed that Sh. Puneet Kumar is not immediate junior to the senior employee Sh. Arun Dutt, Similarly there is no similarity between both cases (Arun Dutt Sharma and Satish Kumar Case) Satish Kumar's case". 3 It has also been observed that the matter of Satish Kumar relates to 1992-1993 Master Scale, whereas, the petitioners were appointed after 2001. The erstwhile HPSAT has directed to dispose of the O.A. with the directions to extend the benefit to petitioner, in case they are similar situated to the case of CWP (T) No. 8161 of 2008, Satish Kumar and others versus state of Himachal Pradesh. Keeping in view of above and as per the observations of H.P. Govt. stated above, the undersigned in compliance to Govt. letter No. Home (A) E (3)-38/2016 dated 03.09.2019, has come to the conclusion that since, Puneet Sharma is not immediate junior to Arun Dutt Sharma. Further, Satish Kumar's anomaly was created due to grant of Master Scale w.e.f.1.1.1993, whereas petitioners were appointed after 2001, hence, Arun Dutt Sharma's case is not similarly situated to that of Satish Kumar case and further anomaly in Arun Dutt Sharma's case is not covered under F.D's instructions dated 10.09.2013, therefore, as per the reasons stated hereinbefore, benefit of step up of pay to the petitioners cannot be extended as such.” 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as also learned Additional Advocate General and having perused the pleadings and the documents appended therewith as also the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that the rejection of the case of the petitioners for stepping up of their pay to bring it at par with their juniors is not sustainable in law. 4 4. A perusal of Para-5 of the reply filed by the State on merit demonstrates that there is an admission on the part of the Department that there is an anomaly in the pay scale of the petitioners vis-à-vis their juniors, but then, the justification given is that the pay anomaly in the case of petitioners has arisen due to pay fixation of junior on promotion as Head Constable under FR 22 (i) a (i) and thereafter, the case of the petitioners was sent for approval of the Competent Authority for stepping up of pay of seniors at par with juniors, but, the Government vide letter dated 03.03.2019 has rejected their claim. 5. This Court is of the considered view that once there is an admission on the part of the respondents that there indeed is an anomaly between the pay of the petitioners vis-à- vis their juniors may be on account of pay fixation of junior on promotion as Head Constable under FR 22(i)a(i), this anomaly has to be removed. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh Grewal and another versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others, (2009) 3 SCC 94, has been pleased to hold that if there is a difference in the pay scale of a senior as compared to a junior, 5 which may be on account of incremental benefits, such anomaly should not be allowed to continue and it has to be rectified by stepping up the pay of the senior. Para 17 of the judgment of the Hon’b’le Supreme Court is quoted hereinbelow:- “Something may be said with regard to Mr Chhabra's submissions about the difference in increment in the scales in which Appellant 1 and Shri Shori are placed, but the same is still contrary to the settled principle of law that a senior cannot be paid a lesser salary than his junior. In such circumstances, even if there was a difference in the incremental benefits in the scale given to Appellant 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 Appellant 1 was also stepped up to that of Shri Shori, 6 2026:HHC:8891 as appears to have been done in the case of Appellant 2.” 7. Therefore, in light of the fact that Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that if there is a pay anomaly in the pay of a senior as compared to a junior, may be on account of the grant of increments to a junior, then also, the pay 6 anomaly has to be removed, the act of the respondents of not construing and considering the case of the petitioners from this perspective is bad and indeed the petitioners are entitled for the removal of anomaly in their pay as compared to their junior. 8. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, this petition is allowed. Order dated 23.08.2023 (Annexure P-13) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to remove the pay anomaly in the pay of the petitioners as compared to their juniors as from the date when the anomaly took place and arrears be paid to the petitioners within a period of three months from today, failing which, it will entail interest @ of 6% per annum from the date of the date of the filing of the writ petition. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 22, 2026 (Vinod)