JUDGMENT : Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, J. The appellant has filed the instant appeal against the judgment dated 02.01.2013, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.196 of 2009 titled Chief Engineer BSL Project, Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. The General Secretary, BSL Project Mazdoor Ekta Union and others, whereby the writ petition preferred by it was dismissed and the award dated 16.10.2006 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh was upheld. Since predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.2(i) to (iii) namely Amar Nath was denied the benefit of stepping up of basic pay with his Junior Labh Singh and not having removed the anomaly, he raised the dispute and the Central Government made a reference for adjudication before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, which is to the following effect: “Whether the action of the management of BBMB represented through Chief Engineer BSNL/BBMB, Sundernagar in denying the benefits of stepping up of basic pay of Sh. Amar Nath, Chargeman, Gr.1 with his junior Sh. Labh Singh, Chargeman Spl. W.e.f. 1.1.88 and not removing the anomaly is fair & just? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?” 2. The precise grouse of the workman-Amar Nath, was that he is senior to Labh Singh in service, but the management of the appellant had fixed his pay at Rs.1530/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.1988, whereas his junior Labh Singh was given pay of Rs.1640/- per month and when the management of the appellant did not accept his plea, he raised the demand notice. The plea which was taken by the management was to the effect that workman-Amar Nath and Sh. Labh Singh did not fall in the same category and both of them had served in different categories. 3. It was not disputed that workman-Amar Nath was appointed as a Chargeman misc. on 25.07.1974 and subsequently promoted as Chargeman Grade-I on 01.10.1976, whereas Labh Singh was appointed as Chargeman Special Grade-I on 08.01.1977. Admittedly, he was junior to the workman-Amar Nath. 4. The plea of management was that workman- Amar Nath got one promotion from the date of his appointment and, therefore, he was entitled to time bound promotion after 16 years of service, whereas Labh Singh did not get any promotion and thus he was given time bound promotion on 01.01.1988. Admittedly, he was junior to the workman-Amar Nath. 4. The plea of management was that workman- Amar Nath got one promotion from the date of his appointment and, therefore, he was entitled to time bound promotion after 16 years of service, whereas Labh Singh did not get any promotion and thus he was given time bound promotion on 01.01.1988. Further the plea of the management was that the time bound promotional scales are admissible only in respect of the post in which the initial induction is through direct recruitment. Since the workman-Amar Nath got promotion in his service career, he was required to wait till completion of 16 years. It is not in dispute that both the workman-Amar Nath and Labh Singh got step up on 01.01.1986 raising their pay to Rs.1440/- per month. Labh Singh got first time bound promotion on 01.01.1988 raising his pay to Rs.1640/- per month, whereas, workman-Amar Nath remained at the stage of Rs.1530/- per month. Sh. Labh Singh got two times benefit of proficiency step up on 01.01.1986 and thereafter 1st Time Bound Scale on 01.01.1988, whereas the workman-Amar Nath was not granted the 1st Time Bound Scale on 01.01.1988 and he was granted the said scale after completion of 16 years of service w.e.f. 25.07.1990. These facts have been admitted by the management and mentioned in para 4 of the writ petition in a tabulated form. The same reads as under:- Respondent No.2 (Amar Nath) (Chargeman Special Grade I) Labh Singh (Chargeman Special Grade I) 1.1.86  1410/- 1.1.86  1410/- 1.1.86  1440/- 1st Proficiency step up 1.1.86  1440/- 1st Proficiency step up 1.1.87  1470/- 1.1.87  1470/- 1.1.88  1530/- 1.1.88  1640    1st Time Bound scale (1640-2925) 1.1.89  1560/- 1.1.89  1720/- 1.1.90  1600/- 1.1.90  1760/- 25.7.90  1800/-  2nd Time bound scale (1800 -3200) 1.1.91  1800/- 1.7.91  1840/- 1.1.92  1840/- 1.7.92  1920/- 1.1.93  1980/- 1.7.93  1960/- 18.1.93  2000/- 2nd Time bound scale (1800-3200) 5. The further plea raised by the management was that since both workman-Amar Nath and Labh Singh were riding on different ladders, they cannot be compared with each other and thus workman-Amar Nath was not entitled for any relief. 6. The further plea raised by the management was that since both workman-Amar Nath and Labh Singh were riding on different ladders, they cannot be compared with each other and thus workman-Amar Nath was not entitled for any relief. 6. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence, came to the conclusion that since admittedly workman-Amar Nath was promoted to the cadre of Chargeman Special Grade-I, a higher post carrying higher emoluments on 01.10.1976 and Labh Singh was appointed in that Grade on 17.01.1977, there is no justification to pay less salary to workman-Amar Nath than Labh Singh and thus came to the conclusion that workman-Amar Nath is entitled to the same pay scale as granted to Labh Singh. 7. The reference was answered holding that the action of the management of the appellant in denying the benefit of stepping up of basic pay of workman-Amar Nath Chargeman Grade-I with his junior Labh Singh, Chargeman Special w.e.f. 01.01.1988 and not removing the anomaly was unfair and unjust and thus directed the management of the appellant to pay the arrears to workman-Amar Nath within three months failing which he shall also be entitled to interest on the said amount of arrears @ 9% per annum. 8. The appellant feeling aggrieved against the award dated 16.10.2006 preferred the writ petition before this Hon’ble Court, which was disposed of 02.01.2013. 9. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that earlier the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 01.11.2023 with costs quantified at Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the appellant to workman-Amar Nath. However, the appellant feeling aggrieved by the said judgment had preferred Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 19534 of 2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. When the matter was listed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 26.06.2024, the appellant had stated that the employee against whom the Letters Patent Appeal was preferred had died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Division Bench of this Court and his legal heirs were not substituted and, therefore, technically the Letters Patent Appeal had abated. Since the appellants were unaware about the death of the workman-Amar Nath, the Special Leave Petition was withdrawn, so as to apply for recall of the order as also for setting aside abatement. Since the appellants were unaware about the death of the workman-Amar Nath, the Special Leave Petition was withdrawn, so as to apply for recall of the order as also for setting aside abatement. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by this Court and LRs of workman-Amar Nath have been brought on record as respondent No.2(i) to (iii), by restoring the L.P.A vide order dated 27.03.2025. 10. The grouse of the appellant in the appeal is that the time bound promotional/devised promotional scales after 9/16 years’ service were admissible only in respect of the post in which initial induction was through direct recruitment. Since the appointment of workman-Amar Nath in the same category/post is not in the same pay scale, the Tribunal has erred while allowing the reference and further the learned Single Judge has erred while dismissing the writ petition. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 12. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 was appointed as Chargeman misc. on 25.07.1974 and subsequently promoted as Chargeman Grade-I on 01.10.1976. The initial appointment of Labh Singh as Chargeman Special Grade-I is on 17.01.1977 and thus the person who was appointed later in point of time and junior to workman-Amar Nath could not have got the higher scale/emolument to his senior and thus the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that workman-Amar Nath was wrongly denied the claim as raised by him in respect of his pay anomaly and rightly answered the reference. 13. The plea raised by the management that the time bound promotional/devised promotional scales after 9/16 years’ service were admissible only in respect of the post in which initial induction was through direct recruitment cannot be countenanced for the reason that it is settled law that the senior cannot get less pay to his junior. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh Grewal and another Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, (2009) 3 SCC 94 , has held that a senior cannot be paid a lesser salary than his junior and relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced herein below:- “15. Mr Chhabra also attempted to justify the disparity in the pay of Shri Shori and Appellant 1 by urging that Appellant 1 had been granted the promotional scale with effect from 1-1-1996, where the benefits of increment in the scale were lower. Mr Chhabra also attempted to justify the disparity in the pay of Shri Shori and Appellant 1 by urging that Appellant 1 had been granted the promotional scale with effect from 1-1-1996, where the benefits of increment in the scale were lower. On the other hand, Shri Shori who joined the services of the Board in 1974, was granted the promotional scale on 17-5-2006, with effect from 1- 9-2001, when the increments and the pay scales were higher. Mr Chhabra submitted that it is the disparity in the incremental benefits that led to the anomaly of Appellant 1 getting a lower salary in the promotional scale. 16. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we have little hesitation in accepting Mr Gupta’s submissions that since the writ petition had been jointly filed on behalf of the appellants, whose interest was common, the prayer therein should not have been confined to Appellant 2 alone and that the High Court should have granted relief to Appellant 1 also by directing that his pay also be stepped up to that of his junior, Shri R.P. Shori. Although this question does not appear to have been gone into by the High Court for the simple reason that the writ petition was disposed of only on the averments contained in Para 7 of the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents that the grievance of Appellant 2 duly addressed, there ought to have been at least some discussion in the judgment of the High Court regarding the claim of Appellant 1. Unfortunately, the case of Appellant 1 was not considered at all by the High Court. 17. 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, as appears to have been done in the case of Appellant 2.” 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had again the occasion to deal with the issue regarding anomaly in the pay scale in respect of senior and has held that if the junior is getting higher pay than his senior, senior is entitled to the same pay and the employer has to step-up his pay as that of his junior. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment in Union of India and others vs. C.R. Madhava Murthy and another, (2022) 6 SCC 183 , are reproduced herein below:- “9. Having heard Ms Madhavi 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 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.” 15. From the above pronouncements of the Supreme Court, it is crystal clear that since workman-Amar Nath was appointed prior to Labh Singh, even on the post of Chargeman, Grade-I, as mentioned above, there is no justification to pay less to him and therefore the award passed by the Labour Court, which has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge, does not require any interference. 16. In view of the aforementioned discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. 16. In view of the aforementioned discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, no order as to costs. Pending applications if any also stands disposed of.