2026:HHC:27034 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3235 of 2024 Decided on: 07.07.2026 Duli Chand …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) [16:59, 7/7/2026] Narender Thakur: i) That the impugned Annexures-P6, P7, P9, P10 and P11, dated 26.08.2023, 11.10.2023, 29.12.2023, 20.02.2024 respectively, may kindly be quashed and set aside; (ii) That the respondents kindly be directed to grant the pay and pay scale to the petitioner as was fixed vide office order dated 24.09.2022, Annexure-P4; (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to step- up the pay of the petitioner at par with his junior Sh. Atma Ram.” 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has restricted the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:27034 prayers made in the present petition only vis-à-vis the prayer for the removal of pay anomaly, which exists in the pay of the petitioner vis- à-vis the pay of one Sh.Atma Ram, who according to the petitioner, was junior to him. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk with the respondent-Board in the year 2002 in the pay scale of Rs.3480-6500. His name was appearing at Sr. No. 571 in the seniority list which was circulated in the year 2022. He further submitted that the petitioner was granted first Time Bound Promotional Scale on completion of 9 years of service w.e.f. 14.11.2011 in the pay band of Rs.6400-20200+3200. His junior Sh.Atma Ram was appointed as a Clerk in the respondent-Board, who joined as such on 10.11.2003 and he is stated to be at Sr. No. 669 in the seniority list circulated on 19.05.2022 as compared to Sr. No. 571 which was the seniority number of the petitioner. Sh. Atma Ram was granted first Time Bound Promotional Scale as a clerk on completion of 9 years of service w.e.f. 10.11.2012. Learned Counsel submitted that in terms of office order dated 08.07.2022, the respondent-Board revised the pay scale of certain categories of employees, which led to the re- fixation of the pay band of the petitioner as well as Sh. Atma Ram and this resulted in the pay anomaly in the pay of the petitioner as compared to the pay of Sh. Atma Ram w.e.f. 10.11.2012. Learned Counsel submitted that in light of the fact that the petitioner was 3 2026:HHC:27034 senior to Sh. Atma Ram, irrespective of the reason that resulted in the pay anomaly, the respondents were bound to remove the pay anomaly. Learned Counsel also submitted that all these facts were brought to the notice of respondent-Board in terms of representation Annexure P-8, but vide Annexure P-9, dated 29.12.2023, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected despite admission on the part of the Board that Sh.Atma Ram was indeed junior to the petitioner. He thus submitted that in light of this fact, the present petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to remove the pay anomaly and step up the pay of the petitioner at par with Sh.Atma Ram as from the date when the said pay anomaly occurred. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent- Board submitted that Annexure P-9 is self-speaking as to why the pay anomaly was there in the pay of the petitioner and Sh. Atma Ram. He submitted that as far as the benefit of Time Bound Promotional Scale is concerned, the same was granted to the petitioner before 01.10.2012, whereas the same was offered to Sh. Atma Ram w.e.f 10.11.2012 i.e. after 1st October, 2012. He submitted that this anomaly in fact is not an anomaly in the strict sense of words and as it was only on account of the grant of Time Bound Promotional Scale on different dates which has resulted in the pay anomaly after the revision of the pay scale occurred in the year 2022 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs, as prayed for. 4 2026:HHC:27034 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 6. As the petitioner has confined his reliefs only with regard to stepping up of his pay at par with Sh. Atma Ram, this Court is not referring to other issues raised in the petition. 7. There is on record as Annexure P-8, representation of the petitioner, seeking stepping up of his pay at par with Sh. Atma Ram. The reason on account whereof the petitioner is seeking the setting up of his pay, has been mentioned in the representation and a perusal of the reply filed by the Board demonstrates that it is not the stand of the Board that the averments made in the representation are incorrect or contrary to the record. 8. In fact, it is clearly borne out from the record that it is not in dispute that the petitioner indeed was senior to Sh. Atma Ram. This is also evident from fact that whereas the petitioner joined the service with respondent-Board as a clerk on 14.11.2002, Sh. Atma Ram joined as such on 10.11.2003, i.e. after almost a year as from the date of joining of the petitioner. 9. Annexure P-9, which is the order passed by the Authority, in terms whereof, representation of the petitioner for removal of pay anomaly has been rejected, also demonstrates that it is not in dispute that Sh.Atma Ram was junior to the petitioner. The reason given in the order passed by the Authority, as to why there 5 2026:HHC:27034 was pay anomaly, is the date when the Time Bound Promotional Scale was conferred upon the petitioner and Sh.Atma Ram. 10. De hors the fact as to when the benefit of Time Bound Promotional Scale was conferred upon the petitioner and Sh. Atma Ram, fact of the matter remains that this led to pay anomaly between the pay of a senior and junior, for which, senior was not responsible. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and Others vs. C.R. Madhava Murthy and Another, (2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 183, has been pleased to hold that in a case, where junior was drawing more pay than his senior on account of upgradation on account of ACP Scheme and there was an anomaly, the pay of the senior was required to be stepped up. 12. In Gurcharan Singh Grewal and another vs. Punjab Electricity Board and Others, (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases, Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the settled principle of law is that a senior cannot be paid lesser salary than his junior. Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that in certain circumstances, even if there was a difference in the incremental benefits in the scale given to the parties, such anomaly should not be allowed to continue and ought to have been rectified by stepping up the pay of the senior. 13. Thus, in the light of the said pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court what is material is that indeed if there is an 6 2026:HHC:27034 anomaly in the pay of a senior as compared to his junior, may be as a result of grant of ACPS or TBPS, as is in the present case, which anomaly is not account of any act of omission or commission of the senior, then the pay of the senior has to be stepped up at par with his junior as from the date when the anomaly occurred. This is for the reason that junior cannot enjoy more pay than a senior, ordinarily. 14. Accordingly, in the light of the said well settled principles of law, the act of the respondents of not stepping up the pay of the petitioner at par with the pay of his junior Sh.Atma Ram, as from the date when the anomaly took place, is held to be bad in law. 15. As a result thereof, Annexure P-9, dated 29.12.2023, is quashed and set aside. The respondent-Board is directed to step up the pay of the petitioner at par with his junior Sh.Atma Ram as from the date when the said anomaly arose. 16. However, in the light of the fact that the petitioner has approached the Court in the year 2024, monetary benefits, to which the petitioner is entitled to as a result of said discrepancy, shall be notional up to three years prior from the date of filing of the writ petition and thereafter, the petitioner shall be entitled to actual monetary benefits. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) 7 2026:HHC:27034 Judge July 07, 2026 (narender)