IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5895 of 2024 Decided on: June 19, 2025 ______________________________________________________________ Bhoop Ram Sharma and another ... Petitioners Versus State of HP and another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Anoop Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Excise and Taxation Inspector on 28.7.1994, joined in August, 1994 and thereafter both were promoted as Excise and Taxation Officer in 2012. Contents of petition reveal that on coming to know that their junior was drawing more pay than them, they made an application 24.8.2016, then on 1.5.2017 and then again in 2023 (Annexure P-2). The representation was forwarded to higher authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise, who further forwarded the same to Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise on 25.2.2023. Another rep. was filed by petitioner No.2 vide Annexure P-5. Petitioners claim that their juniors namely Hans Raj, AETE of 1994 batch is drawing basic pay of Rs.22,860 as on 1.4.2017, Avinash Chauhan, AETO of 1996 batch drawing - 2 - basic pay of Rs.22,280 as on 1.4.2017 whereas, petitioners were drawing basic pay of Rs.18,540/- as on 1.4.2017. Another example has been cited of one Mohan Lal, who is drawing basic pay of Rs.91,200/- as in August, 2022, whereas, petitioner No. 1 is drawing basic pay of Rs.81,000/-. It is claimed by petitioners that they rank at Sr. Nos. 167 and 172 whereas Mohan Lal is at Sr. No. 200 in seniority list. 2. On above facts, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs: “(i) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and the respondents may kindly be directed to step up the salary of the petitioners from (sic: form) the date their juniors started getting more salary than them and further directions may also kindly be issued to the respondents to grant arrears to the petitioners after stepping up salary of the petitioners, along with interes @ 9% p.a. in the interest of law and justice. (ii) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and respondents may kindly be directed to remove the pay anomaly by enhancing pay of the petitioners by granting them step up as per Financial rules from the date of junior started getting more salary than that of the petitioners and after granting the step up, arrears be calculated and may be ordered to be paid to the petitioners @9% p.a.” 3. The reply filed by respondents reveals that vide Notification No. EXN- B(15)-1/2009 dated 26.8.2010, petitioners were re-designated as AETO and benefit of one additional increment on re-designation to the post of AETO was not granted to the petitioners as Notification in this regard was issued on 20.4.2013. It is further stated by respondents that petitioners were promoted as AETO on ad hoc basis vide Notification dated 31.7.2012 and they were - 3 - promoted as such on regular basis vide Notification dated 1.6.2015. While admitting the factum of filing of representations by petitioners for step up, it is stated by respondents that the case of petitioners was examined in Finance Cell and observed as under: “Sh. Mohan Lal, ETO (retd.) who was drawing more pay even before his promotion to the post of ETO due to ACPS benefit and his senor Government Servant that is SH. Bhoop ram and SH. Ashwani Kumar is drawing less pay. The pay of the petitioners were not stepped up as per GOI rule 22 of FRSR where the senior Government Servants at the time of promotion should have been drawing equal or more pay than the junior. Furthermore as per Government letter dated 9-8-2012 at point no4, no stepping up of the pay in the pay band and grade pay would be admissible with regard to junior getting more pay than the senior on account of pay fixation under ACPS scheme. Therefore, as the pay anomaly is due to the grant of ACPS benefits, but as there is no provision of stepping up under ACPS dated 9-8-2012, the request of officers to step up their pay at par with their junior were not accepted and hence, rejected vide this office letter No.1-65/94-EXN-H_Estt- 30114 dated 3-11-2023.” 4. The main plea of the respondents to reject the case of the petitioners is that juniors of petitioners are drawing higher pay on account of benefit of ACPS and as per Notification dated 9.8.2012, senior cannot claim stepping up of pay if his junior draws more pay, on account of grant of benefit under ACPS. 5. At this stage, it would be take note of Clause 4(g) and (h) of letter dated 9.8.2012 whereby new Assured Career Progressions Scheme was introduced: “(g) The progressions granted under this scheme shall be purely personal to the employee and shall have no relevance to his seniority - 4 - position. As such, the senior employees shall have no claim of partiy of pay on the ground that the junior employee working on the same post has got higher pay or grade pay under this scheme,. While implementing this scheme, the difference in pay scales on account of grant of financial upgradation under the old ACP Scheme (15.12.98) and under this scheme within the same cadre shall not be construed as an anomaly. (h) No stepping up of pay in the pay band and grade pay would be admissible with regard to junior getting more pay than the senior on account of pay fixation under this scheme.” 6. Since the right of a senior employee to step up his pay at par with his junior flows from FR 22, it may be apt to take note of relevant rule, which is reproduced herein below: “FR 22. (I) The initial pay of a Government servant who is appointed to a post on a time-scale of pay is regulated as follows: - (a) (1) Where a Government servant holding a post, other than a tenure post, in a substantive or temporary or officiating capacity is promoted or appointed in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity, as the case may be, subject to the fulfilment of the eligibility conditions as prescribed in the relevant Recruitment Rules, to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post held by him, his initial pay in the time-scale shall be fixed by giving one increment in the level from which the Government servant is promoted and he or she shall be placed at a cell equal to the figure so arrived at in the level of the post to which promoted or appointed and if no such cell is available in the level to which promoted or appointed, he shall be placed at the next higher cell in that level. - 5 - Save in cases of appointment on deputation to an ex cadre post, or to a post on ad hoc basis or on direct recruitment basis, the Government servant shall have the option, to be exercised within one month from the date of promotion or appointment, as the case may be, to have the pay fixed under this rule from the date of such promotion or appointment or to have the pay fixed initially at the next cell in the level of the post to which he or she is promoted on regular basis and subsequently, on the date of accrual of next increment in the level of the post from which Government servant is promoted, his pay shall be re-fixed and two increments (one accrued on account of annual increment and the second accrued on account of promotion) shall be granted in the level from which the Government servant is promoted and he or she shall be placed, at a cell equal to the figure so arrived in the level of the post to which he or she is promoted; and if no such cell is available in the level to which he or she is promoted, he or she shall be placed at the next higher cell in that level. In cases where an ad hoc promotion is followed by regular appointment without break, the option is admissible from the date of initial appointment or promotion, to be exercised within one month from the date of such regular appointment. In cases where an officer has retired as ad hoc before being regularized to that post and later on has been assessed during the process of regularization and found fit by the Competent Authority along with his or her juniors, who are still in service and are eligible to avail of the option facility from a date on which the retired employee, was still in service, the same option facility shall also be extended to the retired employee to be exercised within three months from the date when his or her junior became eligible to avail of option facility and in cases where such retired employee was himself the junior most, he or she may exercise - 6 - the option facility within three months from the date when his or her immediate senior became eligible to avail of option facility. Provided that where a Government servant is, immediately before his promotion or appointment on regular basis to a higher post, drawing pay at the maximum of the level of the lower post, his initial pay in the level of the higher post shall be fixed at the cell equal to the figure so arrived at in the level of the post to which promoted or appointed by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post held by him on regular basis by an amount equal to the last increment in the level of the lower post and if no such cell is available in the level to which he is promoted or appointed, he shall be placed at the next higher cell in that level.” 7. Rule 22 (I)(a)(1) provides that where a Government servant holding a post, other than a tenure post, in a substantive or temporary or officiating capacity is promoted or appointed in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity, as the case may be, subject to the fulfilment of the eligibility conditions as prescribed in the relevant Recruitment Rules, to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post held by him, his initial pay in the time-scale shall be fixed by giving one increment in the level from which the Government servant is promoted and he or she shall be placed at a cell equal to the figure so arrived at in the level of the post to which promoted or appointed and if no such cell is available in the level to which promoted or appointed, he shall be placed at the next higher cell in that level. - 7 - 8. Though, above rule provides for stepping up of pay of a senior officer to bring it at par with junior but clause 4(g) and (h) of letter dated 9.8.2012 debars such senior officer from claiming such benefit. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India and others v. CR Madhav Murti and another, (2022) 6 SCC 183, whereby it has been held as under: “4. "Having heard Ms. Madhvi Divan, learned ASC and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, which has emerged from the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it cannot be said that the original writ petitioners were as such claiming the stepping up of the pay under the ACP Scheme. Their grievance was with respect to the anomaly in the pay scale and their grievance was that while granting upgradation under the ACP Scheme, their juniors were getting higher salaries than what they receive. Therefore, it was a case of removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay of seniors on promotion drawing a less pay than their juniors. 5 The High Court has therefore rightly relied and/or considered FR 22 and the order issued by the Government of India on removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay, which reads as under: - "(22) Removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay of Senior on promotion drawing less pay than his junior - (a) As a result of application of FR 22 -C. [Now FR 22 (1) (a) (1)]. In order to remove the anomaly of a Government servant promoted or appointed to a higher post on or after 1-4-1961 drawing a lower rate of pay in that post than another Government servant junior to him in the lower grade and promoted or appointed subsequently to another identical post, it has been decided the in such cases the pay of the senior officer in the higher post should be stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for the junior officer - 8 - in that higher post. The stepping up should be done with effect from the date of promotion or appointment of the junior officer and will be subject to the following conditions, namely:- (a) Both the junior and senior officers should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical and in the same cadre: (b) The scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical; (c) The anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of FR- 22-C. For example, if even in the lower post the junior officer draws from time to time a higher rate of pay than the senior by virtue of grant of advance increments, the above provisions will not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior officer." The orders refixing the pay of the senior officers in . accordance with the above provisions shall be issued under FR-27. The next increment of the senior officer will be drawn on completion of the requisite qualifying service with effect from the date of refixation of pay. 6. Therefore, it was a case where a junior was drawing more pay on account of upgradation under the ACP Scheme and there was an anomaly and therefore, the pay of senior was required to be stepped up. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has rightly directed the appellants herein to step up the pay of the original writ petitioners keeping in view of pay scale which has been granted to the juniors from the date they have started drawing lesser pay than their juniors. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. No interference of this Court is called for." 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance upon judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 2650 of 2020, Naresh Dutt Sharma v. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 22.5.2023, wherein C.R. Madhav Murti (supra) has been relied upon and petitioner - 9 - therein was held entitled for stepping up of pay at par with his junior, who was drawing higher pay on account of grant of benefit granted to him under ACPS. 11. Having perused judgments passed in C.R. Madhav Murti and Naresh Dutt Sharma, this court is of definite view that the objection raised by respondents to negate claim of the petitioners for stepping up of pay on account of grant of ACPS to their juniors does not appear to be legally sustainable and thus deserves to be rejected. 12. Otherwise, similar view has already been taken by this Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in CWPOA No. 5846 of 2019 titled Vipan Chand v. State of HP, decided on 30.8.2022 and CWP No. 2247 of 2022, Yatinder Nath Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, wherein also petitioners were held entitled for stepping up of pay at par with their juniors. 13. Hence, in view of aforesaid legal position, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to grant benefit of stepping up of pay at par with Mohan Lal (IP40-14162), from the date such anomaly arose, alongwith arrears on account of grant of actual monetary benefits. This exercise be completed within two months from today. Petition stands disposed of in afore terms, alongwith all pending applications. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 19, 2025 (Vikrant)