( 2025:HHC:38961 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.8941 of 2024 Decided on: 13th November, 2025 Shyam Lal Khimta .......Petitioner Versus H.P. High Court and another ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S.Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr.P.D. Nanda and Ms.Anita Kumari Jalota, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.2. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The petitioner seeks a relief of quashing of impugned pay fixation order dated 12.11.2020 (Annexure P-4), whereby upon promotion and appointment as Superintendent Grade-II, his pay was fixed at Rs.15640/- (440+11400+3800 Grade Pay)+ Rs.900 Secretariat pay, while noting that his date of promotion as Senior Assistant was 26.07.2012. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:38961 ) 2 2. Similarly, the petitioner also challenges order dated 02.09.2022 (Annexure P-8) wherein on promotion as Section Officer, his pay was fixed at Rs.56100/-. His request for re-fixation on the ground that his juniors, as such, were drawing higher pay-scales, had also been rejected on 13.04.2023 (Annexure P-11) by a non-speaking order, which reads as under:- “Subject: Representation regarding re-fixation of pay. Memo, With reference to your representation dated 24.12.2022, on the subject cited above, I have been directed to inform that your request has been considered and rejected.” 3. Learned counsel for the High Court has fallen back on the decision of the Grievance Committee which dealt with the issue whereby the recovery, as such, on the re-fixation and that stepping up of ACP which had been withdrawn at the time of pay fixation as Superintendent Grade-II had been made and on the recommendations of the audit officials of the H.P. Accountant General, it was only noted that recovery could not be effected from a Class-III employee and to that extent, he had been protected. 4. Perusal of the representation dated 17.02.2022 (Annexure P-6) would go on to show that the grouse of the ( 2025:HHC:38961 ) 3 petitioner was that his junior Smt.Sudesh Sharma, being Superintendent Grade-II was drawing higher pay and similarly, perusal of another representation dated 24.12.2022 (Annexure P-10) would go to on to show that Smt.Madhu Chauhan, Superintendent Grade-II was also getting higher pay. On the representation of the petitioner, limited relief had been granted by the Grievance Committee on 14.10.2022 (Annexure P-7) that no recovery would be effected from him. 5. As noticed above, the order passed on the representation of the petitioner is non-speaking and not sustainable, in view of the law laid down in Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, whereby, it has been held that the order has to be self-speaking and contain reasons and every administrative authority is required to give reasons so that the order can be examined, whether it is justifiable or not. The order dated 13.04.2023 (Annexure P-11) suffers from the said ailment and, therefore, is not sustainable. 6. The issue of non-grant of the stepping up and placing him at par with his juniors has been justified by filing a written statement by the High Court and placing reliance on the instructions issued by the Government that no stepping ( 2025:HHC:38961 ) 4 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. 7. While referring to the instructions of the State dated 09.08.2012, it is also to be noticed that State itself has chosen to adopt the reply filed by the High Court and not filed any independent reply. 8. Perusal of the written statement would go on to show that there is no such details regarding that his juniors, as such, who had got step up on account of having longer service and the step up was personal to the said juniors. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that firstly, the rejection order being non-speaking could not be supplanted by filing reply to improve the case of the respondents. Even otherwise, the written statement also does not help respondent No.1 in any manner. If one is to examine the annexures, as noticed above, the petitioner was promoted and appointed as Senior Assistant on 26.07.2012 (Annexure P-4). It has to be noticed that at the initial point of time, on 03.10.2013 (Annexure P-2), by an office order, the pay of the petitioner had been fixed at Rs.17,220/- on 01.07.2013 by stepping up to keep at par with his junior Smt.Sudesh ( 2025:HHC:38961 ) 5 Sharma, Senior Assistant. Apparently, the re-fixation (Annexure P-4) was done by reducing the pay, while noting that he was promoted on 26.07.2012 as Senior Assistant and brought down to Rs.15640/- without issuing any show cause notice and putting him to disadvantage. Smt.Madhu Chauhan, a similarly situated Superintendent Grade-II having been promoted as Senior Assistant subsequently on 05.09.2013, her pay had been fixed at Rs.17200/- (480+12320+4400 Grade Pay)+Rs.900/- Secretariat pay, and in such circumstances, the petitioner was agitating for his grievance. 9. It is to be noticed that the petitioner when promoted as Section Officer on 09.03.2022 and his pay was fixed at Rs.56500/- (upgraded level 16) and Smt.Madhu Chauhan was promoted after him on 26.08.2022 and was drawing Rs.58200/-, which would be clear from office order dated 13.08.2021 (Annexure P-9). 10. In such circumstances, it would be clear that there is no dispute regarding the averments made that the juniors of the petitioner were drawing more pay than the petitioner. Resultantly, the action of the respondents is not sustainable. ( 2025:HHC:38961 ) 6 11. Reliance can be placed upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Gurcharan Singh Grewal vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others (2009) 3 SCC 94 and Union of India and others vs. C.R. Madhava Murthy and another (2022) 6 SCC 183, whereby, the benefit of stepping up, as such, was granted on account of the fact that the senior cannot be paid lesser salary than the junior and the anomaly should have been rectified. It is apt to reproduce paras 9 and 11 of the C.R. Madhava Murthy’s case herein:- “9. Having heard Ms. Madhvi Divan, learned ASG 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. 11. 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 ( 2025:HHC:38961 ) 7 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.” 12. Keeping in view the above, we quash order dated 13.04.2023 (Annexure P-11) and issue a writ of mandamus, as such, to the respondents to re-fix the pay of the petitioner by granting him stepping up his pay at par with his juniors while he was Senior Assistant, Superintendent Grade-II and Section Officer. Needful be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 13. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) November 13, 2025 Judge (naveen)