2026:HHC:20450 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.3698 of 2020 Decided on: 27.05.2026 Avtar Singh Saini and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners: Mr. S.P. Chatterji, with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioners by way of present petition have prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(i). That the orders dated 24.10.2017 (Annexure A-9) of Respondent No.2 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii). To direct the Respondents to step-up of the Applicants to a stage/figure equal to the pay as fixed for their junior-Shri Ashok Kumar with effect from the date he started drawing more pay on promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer(Mechanical) with consequential benefits including retiral.” 2. The facts which emerge from the pleadings are 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:20450 that petitioners No.1 & 2 were appointed as Junior Engineers (Mechanical) on 16.02.1981 and 21.03.1980, respectively and later on, they were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) w.e.f. 14.10.2011 and their pay fixation was done as per office orders dated 30.01.2012 (Annexure A-1) and 04.01.2012 (Annexure A-2), respectively. Petitioners No.1 and 2 were fixed at Rs.29,750/- and Rs.30,340/- respectively. As per the instructions dated 27.09.2012 (Annexure A-3), which were in continuation of earlier instructions dated 09.08.2012, the Career Progression Scheme for Junior Engineers was restored with effect from 27.08.2009 and Junior Engineers, who had completed 20 years of regular service, were granted Pay Band of Rs.15600-39100 + Grade Pay of Rs.6600/-. According to this Notification, one Ashok Kumar who was admittedly junior to the petitioners was fixed at Rs.30,670/-, w.e.f. 01.10.2012 (Annexure A-4). This person was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer vide Notification dated 05.11.2013 and his pay was fixed, vide office order dated 22.04.2014 (Annexure A- 5) at Rs.33,520/-. Since the petitioners were getting less pay, though admittedly senior to the aforesaid person 3 2026:HHC:20450 namely Sh. Ashok Kumar, they made representation dated 15.11.2012, for stepping-up of their pay and when no decision was taken by the respondents, they had approached the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) by way of an Original Application(M) No.197 of 2016, praying therein to grant them benefit of Assured Career Progression (for short ‘ACP’)/grade pay of Rs.6600/- after completion of 20 years of service as Junior Engineer. The said Original Application was disposed of on 03.04.2017, when a direction was issued to respondent No.2 to consider and take a decision on the representations dated 15.11.2012, made by the petitioners for stepping-up of their pay. After passing the order by the Tribunal, respondent No.2 passed an order on 24.10.2017 (Annexure A-9), whereby the claim of the petitioners came to be rejected by holding that they are not entitled to the grade pay of Rs.6600/- w.e.f. 01.10.2012. The reason which weighed with respondent No.2 to reject the claim was that petitioners No.1 & 2 were promoted as Assistant Engineers on 20.10.2011 and 19.10.2011, respectively. The grade pay of Rs.6600/- was granted to the Junior Engineers after completion of 20 years 4 2026:HHC:20450 of regular service and since the petitioners were promoted as Assistant Engineers prior to 01.10.2012, they were not entitled to the same. The benefit granted to their junior namely Sh. Ashok Kumar was given since he was working as Junior Engineer as on 01.10.2012 and promoted as Assistant Engineer only on 08.11.2013. Thus, the case of the petitioners is entirely different from that of Sh. Ashok Kumar. 3. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 24.10.2017 (Annexure A-9) have preferred the present petition claiming the benefit of stepping-up on the plea that once the junior officer has been promoted later than the petitioners, and drawing more pay than them, their pay has to be stepped-up to the figure equal to his pay. It is settled principle of law that senior cannot be paid less than his junior even if anomaly in senior’s pay is due to difference of incremental benefits granted to junior. 4. The respondents filed reply to the petition and supported the decision. It has been averred that the respondents-State had restored the ACPs on completion of 4, 9 and 14 years of service, as per Notification dated 09.08.2012 (Annexure R-1), wherein clause-(g) provides that 5 2026:HHC:20450 the progression granted under the scheme, shall be purely personal to the employee and shall have no relevance to his seniority position. The senior employees shall have no claim of parity of pay on the ground that the junior employees working on the same post has got higher pay or grade pay under this scheme. Further, under clause-(h), it has categorically been provided that 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 the scheme. Sh. Ashok Kumar was granted benefit under ACPS after 20 years of service in the grade of Junior Engineer, whereas the petitioners were already promoted to the posts of Assistant Engineer prior to 01.10.2012 from which date, the ACPS has been implemented to the cadre of Junior Engineer. It has been admitted that the junior of the petitioners namely Ashok Kumar was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer vide Notification dated 05.11.2013, and thus, the petitioners are not entitled to the same pay as granted to Sh. Ashok Kumar. 5. The petitioners filed rejoinder to the reply and controverted the averments made therein. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties 6 2026:HHC:20450 and also perused the record carefully. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were admittedly senior to Sh. Ashok Kumar. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners No.1 & 2 have been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 20.10.2011 and 19.10.2011 respectively, whereas Sh. Ashok Kumar was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer vide Notification dated 05.11.2013. The plea which has been taken by the respondents in the reply as well as while rejecting the claim of the petitioners to remove the anomaly is only that Sh. Ashok Kumar, who was not promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer was granted the benefit of grade pay of Rs.6600/-, after completion of 20 years’ service and since the petitioners were earlier promoted to the posts of Assistant Engineer, they were not entitled to the said benefit, more particularly when as per the instructions/ Notification dated 09.08.2012 (Annexure R-1), the benefit was to be granted only w.e.f. 01.10.2012, whereas the petitioners were already promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers. The said plea cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that as per the instructions which have been issued on 26.08.2009 (Annexure A-7), as per note 6, clause 7 2026:HHC:20450 7 clearly stipulates that in case where a senior employee promoted to higher post before 01.01.2006, draws less pay in the revised pay structure than his junior, who is promoted to a higher post after the first day of January, 2006, the pay in the pay band of the senior Government employee will be stepped-up to an amount equal to the pay of the pay band as fixed for his junior in that higher post. No doubt the said stepping up will be done with effect from the date of promotion of the junior Government employee subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions :- (a) both the junior and senior Government employees should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted should be identical in the same cadre; (b) the pre-revised scale of pay and the revised grade pay of the lower and higher post in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical; (c) the senior Government employees at the time of promotion should have been drawing equal or more pay than the junior; and (d) the anomaly should be directly as a result of application of the provisions of these rules or any 8 2026:HHC:20450 other rule or order regulating pay fixation on such promotion in the revised pay structure. If even in the lower post, the junior officer was drawing more pay in the pre-revised pay than his senior by virtue of any advance increment(s) granted to him, the provisions of this note shall not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior employee. 8. Admittedly in the present case, as per note 6 above, both the petitioners and Ashok Kumar were belonging to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted are in the same cadre. Before promotion of the petitioners to the post of Assistant Engineer, they were getting the same pay scale as granted to their junior namely Ashok Kumar and they were getting more pay than their junior. Ashok Kumar was given the benefit of ACPS after completion of 20 years’ service and due to this reason, he started drawing more pay than the petitioners. He was granted this benefit only for the reason that he was not promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. However, later on he was promoted to the said post and once the petitioners being senior at the time of promotion 9 2026:HHC:20450 were drawing more pay than Sh. Ashok Kumar, were entitled to be granted the benefit of step-up and respondent No.2 has wrongly rejected their claim, which is not sustainable in law. It is settled law that the senior cannot be paid less than his junior and it can be only if the junior acquired additional qualification, which entitled him to get more pay than his senior, that too, if specifically provided in the R&P Rules and not otherwise. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh Grewal and others vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & others, (2009) 3 SCC 94, took note of settled principle of law that a senior cannot be paid lesser salary than his junior and has held as under:- “15. Mr. Chhabra also attempted to justify the disparity in the pay of Shri Shori and the appellant No.1 by urging that the appellant No. 1 had been granted the promotional scale with effect from 1st January, 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 17th May, 2006, with effect from 1st September, 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 the appellant No.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 10 2026:HHC:20450 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 the appellant No.2 alone and that the High Court should have granted relief to the appellant No.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 paragraph 7 of the written statement filed on behalf of respondents that the grievance of the appellant No.2 duly addressed, there ought to have been at least some discussion in the judgment of the High Court regarding the claim of the appellant No.1. Unfortunately, the case of the appellant No.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 which the appellant No.1 and Shri Shori are placed, but the same is still contrary to the settled principle of law that a senior cannot be paid lesser salary than his junior. In such circumstances, even if, there was a difference in the incremental benefits in the scale given to the appellant No.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 the appellant No.1 was also stepped up to that of Shri Shori, as appears to have been done in the case of the appellant No.2. 18. We are unable to accept the reasoning of the High Court in this regard or the submissions made in support thereof by Mr. Chhabra, since the very object to be achieved is to bring the pay scale of the appellant No.1 at par with that of his junior. We are clearly of the opinion 11 2026:HHC:20450 that the reasoning of the High Court was erroneous and the appellant No.1 was also entitled to the same benefits of pay parity with Shri Shori as has been granted to the appellant No.2.” 10. Not only this, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had again the occasion to deal with the similar proposition of law in Union of India and others vs. C.R. Madhava Murthy and another, (2022) 6 SCC 183, wherein the senior employees were denied step-up on the ground that the employee junior to the petitioner had been granted upgradation under the ACP scheme, and had started drawing higher pay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the import of FR 22, which provides stepping-up of pay and removal of anomaly by stepping-up the pay of the senior, on promotion drawing less pay than his junior, held that the senior cannot be granted less pay. The relevant paras of the judgment read as under:- “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, 12 2026:HHC:20450 it was a case of removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay of seniors on promotion drawing a less pay than their juniors. 10. 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 (I) (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 that 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 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 I 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. 13 2026:HHC:20450 [G.I., M.F., 0.M. No.F.2 [78)E.III (A)/66, dated the 4th February, 1966)". 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.” 11. In the present case, the law propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable for the reason that the petitioners herein too have been denied the same pay as granted to their junior only for the reason that their junior was granted the benefit under ACPS. Once the petitioners being senior in the feeder category of Junior Engineers and were drawing more pay than their junior namely Sh. Ashok Kumar, they could not have been denied the benefit of step-up, especially when their junior, even after his promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer to which posts the petitioners were earlier promoted was getting and paid more pay. 14 2026:HHC:20450 12. Consequently, in view of the discussions made herein above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.10.2017 (Annexure A-9) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to pay same pay-scales to the petitioners from the day when the aforementioned employee namely Sh. Ashok Kumar was granted, on notional basis and on actual basis three years prior to filing of the present petition. In case the arrears of step-up are not released and paid to the petitioners within three months from today, it shall carry interest @6% per annum from the due date till its actual payment. However, no orders as to cost. 13. The petition is accordingly disposed of and pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 27 th May , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge