IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.11984 of 2024 Decided on 02nd July, 2026 Suresh Kumar 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: M/s Vinay Mehta and Devi Singh, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- a) “That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents directing them to grant the same and similar pay to the petitioners as was being granted to the junior persons namely Smt. Kalpana Mahajan, Sh. Devi Ram, Smt. Chand Kumari and Sh. Dinesh Kumar on the principle of "equal pay for equal work" w.e.f. due date since, the petitioners are much senior to the juniors namely Smt. Kalpana Mahajan, Sh. Devi Ram, Smt. Chand Kumari and Sh. Dinesh Kumar from the initial date of the their appointment as J.B.T in view of judgment dated 22.05.2023 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWPOA No 2650/2020 (Annexure P-2). 2 b). That the respondent may also be directed to release the arrears of difference of pay of the petitioners and juniors persons namely Smt. Kalpana Mahajan, Sh. Devi Ram, Smt. Chand Kumari and Sh. Dinesh Kumar in favour of the petitioners from the due date alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.” 2. The case of the petitioners is that petitioners No.1 to 5 and 10 were appointed as JBT Teachers in the year 1989, whereas, petitioner No.9 was appointed as such in the month of October, 1990. Petitioners No.6 to 8 were appointed as JBT Teachers in the month of October, 1993. Their grievance is that teachers, whose names are given in Para-2 of the writ petition, namely, Smt. Kalpana Mahajan, Sh. Devi Ram, Smt. Chand Kumari and Sh. Dinesh Kumar, who were otherwise junior to the petitioners, were drawing more pay scale than them and it is for the removal of the said pay anomaly, they have approached this Court. Smt. Kalpana Mahajan is stated to have been appointed on 16.10.1990, Sh. Devi Ram on 29.04.1995, Smt. Chand Kumari, on 12.12.1994 and Sh. Dinesh Kumar on 12.12.1994. It is further the case of the petitioners that the respondent-State revised the pay scale of the employees firstly w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and thereafter, w.e.f. 01.01.2006, in which the 3 pay scales of the petitioners as well as persons junior to them were fixed and in this exercise of pay revision, the pay anomaly has arisen. 3. The stand of the respondent-Department is that a new ACP Scheme was introduced by the State on 09.08.2012, w.e.f. 27.08.2009. The petitioners voluntarily opted for this new scheme in preference to the earlier ACP Scheme, which was in vogue and the disparity in the pay of most of the petitioners occurred primarily due to the grant of Assured Career Progression Scheme under the old scheme and the new scheme. It is also the stand of the State that the disparity has also arisen in certain cases on account of financial benefits availed by the employees as per their individual choices such as promotional increment etc. Further, as per Clause-9 of the Finance Department Notification dated 03.01.2022, stepping up of pay shall not be admissible in cases where the difference arises due to application of the instructions relating to the implementation of Assured Career Progression Scheme. 4 4. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the pay anomaly being an admitted fact, should have been removed by the respondents, learned Assistant Advocate General by referring to the reply filed by the State has submitted that the reasons as to why the pay anomaly exists are clearly mentioned in the reply and the same further demonstrates that the petitioners are not entitled for the stepping up of pay. 5. It is not in dispute that an anomaly in the pay scale of the petitioners with regard to their juniors does exist. This Court is ignoring the case of Smt. Kalpana Mahajan, because, she happens to be junior to a few petitioners only and senior to few petitioners. For the purpose of disparity, this Court shall referring only to the pay anomaly that exists between the petitioners and Sh. Devi Ram, Smt. Chand Kumari and Sh. Dinesh Kumar, all of whom admittedly were appointed as JBT Teachers after the petitioners. 6. It is not in dispute that the pay anomaly was on account of the benefit of ACP Scheme conferred upon the employees by the Department concerned. 5 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and others versus C.R. Madhava Murthy and another, (2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 183, has been pleased to hold that where a junior draws more pay on account of upgradation under the ACP Scheme and there was an anomaly, the pay of a senior is required to be stepped up. 8. In the light of this fact, the stand of the State that because, the anomaly exists on account of the grant of ACP and, therefore, does not require any correction, cannot be accepted. 9. As admittedly, there was a pay anomaly in the pay of the petitioners, as compared to their juniors, namely, Sh. Devi Ram, Smt. Chand Kumari and Sh. Dinesh Kumar, be it on account of the ACP Scheme, the pay of the senior was required to be stepped up and the failure on the part of the Department not to do so is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 10. However, in light of the fact that the petitioners have approached this Court only in the month of October, 2024, this Court is directing the respondents to step up the pay of the petitioners to bring it at par with the pay of the persons junior to 6 them, however, the monetary benefits, which accrue to the petitioners are hereby ordered to be curtailed to three years prior to the filing of the writ petition. This is being done in terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and others versus Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 648, that in case, where a party belatedly approaches the Court in a service matter, then, monetary benefits should be restricted to three years preceding the filing of the writ petition. 11. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 02, 2026 (Vinod)