JUDGMENT : JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ, J. 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(i). That writ in the nature of certiorari may very kindly be issued by quashing and setting aside impugned rejection order dated 16.03.2012, Annexure P-8, being illegal and arbitrary. (ii). That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued, directing the respondents to step up the pay of the petitioner so as to make it equal to the figure of his juniors right from the date, i.e., 01.01.1996, the juniors of the petitioner S/Shri Rupa Ram and Bardas Kashyap have drawn more pay than the petitioner. (iii). That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued, directing the respondents to pay all the arrears accrued to the petitioner with interest @ 12% per annum thereon, from the date of becoming due till its realization.” 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Forest Ranger with the respondent-Department on 30.12.1961 in the pay-scale of Rs.100-10-200/10-300 and, thereafter promoted to the cadre of Himachal Pradesh Forest Service Officers, (hereinafter referred as HPFS) w.e.f. 23.01.1982 and retired on 31.03.1999 on attaining the age of superannuation. 3. The petitioner was assigned the seniority position on the post of Forest Ranger at Serial No.90 below one Prakash Chand and above Shri Raghubir Chand whereas, S/Sh. Rupa Ram and Bardas Kashyap figured at Serial No.206 and 224, respectively, as per the seniority list, circulated vide order dated 30.04.1974 by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. S/Sh. Rupa Ram and Bardas Kashyap remained junior to the petitioner even in the aforesaid list maintained in respect of H.P.F.S. Officers service cadre, where the petitioner had been assigned place at Serial No.49, much above S/Sh. Rupa Ram and Bardas Kashyap, while making ad-hoc promotion of S/Sh. Rupa Ram and Bardas Kashyap, which being a stop gap arrangement, the seniority criteria alone should have been taken into consideration. As per instructions of the State Government, ad-hoc appointments/promotions should not have been allowed to continue beyond the period of six months. However, both the aforesaid persons were allowed to continue for an indefinite period and were granted the pay- scale of Rs.12000-375-13500-400-15900-450-16350. 4. As per instructions of the State Government, ad-hoc appointments/promotions should not have been allowed to continue beyond the period of six months. However, both the aforesaid persons were allowed to continue for an indefinite period and were granted the pay- scale of Rs.12000-375-13500-400-15900-450-16350. 4. The petitioner vide Notification dated 18.05.2001, on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DPC’), had been given the pay-scale of Rs.12000-16350 w.e.f. 23.01.1998 with next date of increment as on 01.01.1999, raising his pay to Rs.12,375/- per month. The petitioner was already drawing Rs.12,000/- per month and thus there was no financial gain to him. However, S/Sh. Rupa Ram and Bardas Kashyap had been given the higher pay scale of Rs.12000-375-13500-400-15900-450-16350 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and consequently fixed at Rs.12,000/- with next date of increment as on 01.01.1997, raising their pay to Rs.12,375/- per month and on 01.01.1998 to Rs.12,750/- per month (Sh. Rupa Ram retired on 31.01.1998) and on 01.01.1999 to Rs.13,125/- per month qua Sh. Bardas Kashyap, meaning thereby the pay anomaly arose to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1996, when the pay of S/Sh. Rupa Ram and Bardas Kashyap in the cadre of HPFS, junior to the petitioner, was raised to Rs.12,000/- per month from Rs.10,980/- per month in the existing pay scale of Rs.10025-15100, whereas, the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.10025-15100 was already drawing more pay viz. Rs.11,360/- as on 01.01.1996, as compared to his aforesaid juniors. 5. The petitioner till 01.01.1996 drew more pay as Ranger as well as on his promotion to the cadre of H.P.F.S. Officers and it was only from 01.01.1996, he was started drawing less pay than his above said juniors till the date of his retirement i.e. 31.03.1999. The anomaly arose since 01.01.1996 on promotion of juniors of the petitioner earlier to him, though he was also promoted to the post of HPFS on 23.01.1982, whereas S/Sh. Rupa Ram and Bardas Kashyap were promoted w.e.f. 07.07.1979 on ad-hoc basis. After promotion, on the principle of “catch-up” the petitioner regained seniority and was placed above his juniors S/Sh. Rupa Ram and Bardas Kashyap. 6. The petitioner made representations to grant him step up, which came to be rejected vide order dated 10.01.2006 (Annexure P-5) and 30.01.2006 (Annexure P-6). 7. After promotion, on the principle of “catch-up” the petitioner regained seniority and was placed above his juniors S/Sh. Rupa Ram and Bardas Kashyap. 6. The petitioner made representations to grant him step up, which came to be rejected vide order dated 10.01.2006 (Annexure P-5) and 30.01.2006 (Annexure P-6). 7. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the orders had preferred a writ petition bearing CWP (T) No. 14458 of 2008, titled, Pyar Chand Sharma vs. State of H.P. and another , decided on 12.09.2011 and had contended that his case is covered under two judgments of this Court passed in CWP (T) No. 2348 of 2008, titled, Avtar Singh Katwal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others on 01.04.2009 and in CWP (T) No. 13348 of 2008, titled, J.K. Mohindru vs. State of H.P and another on 30.12.2010. 8. This Court vide judgment dated 12.09.2011 had disposed of the petition by holding that if on facts, the case of the petitioner is covered under the judgments referred above and the same have attained finality and implemented and the petitioner is similarly situate, he shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and benefit of the said judgments along-with consequential benefits, if any, shall be extended to him within three months from the date of production of copy of the judgment and the judgments referred to above by the petitioner. 9. In sequel to the directions given by this Court, the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 16.03.2012 (Annexure P-8) by holding that the petitioner (Sh.Avtar Singh Katwal) along-with his juniors was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 19.05.1986 and was assigned seniority at Serial No.420-A and one Rakesh Kant Gupta was assigned seniority at Serial No.449. Petitioner Avtar Singh Katwal came to know that Sh. Rakesh Kant Gupta who is junior to him in the cadre of Junior Engineer, was drawing higher pay than him. Sh. Rakesh Kant Gupta was granted pre-mature increment w.e.f. 01.01.1966 raising his pay from Rs.130/- to Rs.140/- under F.R.27 and the Court had maintained that senior cannot be paid lesser salary than his junior. 10. Rakesh Kant Gupta who is junior to him in the cadre of Junior Engineer, was drawing higher pay than him. Sh. Rakesh Kant Gupta was granted pre-mature increment w.e.f. 01.01.1966 raising his pay from Rs.130/- to Rs.140/- under F.R.27 and the Court had maintained that senior cannot be paid lesser salary than his junior. 10. So far as the judgment in J.K. Mohindru’s case is concerned, this Court had held that as far as promotion to the post of Executive Engineer is concerned, J.K. Mohindru was promoted as Executive Engineer prior to Sh.Gurunath Vashist, but was being paid salary less than that of Sh.Gurunath Vashist and thus, this Court had allowed the petition, considering the provisions of F.R. 22, whereas, in the case of the petitioner, the aforesaid employees, who were junior to the petitioner, being Scheduled Caste category candidates were considered and promoted on ad-hoc basis against the two posts meant for SC candidates. The petitioner was promoted to the post of H.P.F.S. w.e.f. 23.01.1982 on ad- hoc basis and on regular basis w.e.f. 22.12.1983. The petitioner was given higher pay-scale of Rs.12000-16350 in the HPFS cadre w.e.f. 23.01.1998, after completion of 16 years’ of service in the HPFS cadre, whereas, the aforesaid employees were granted the higher pay scale, keeping in view their promotion to the post of HPFS cadre w.e.f. 07.07.1979 i.e. earlier to the petitioner, when they completed 16 years’ of service on 07.07.1995 and they were given the next higher pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996. On that basis, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner. 11. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.03.2012 (Annexure P-8), by way of present petition and pleaded that his case is covered by the directions given in the judgments in Avtar Singh Katwal and J.K. Mohindru’s case. Further, while making promotion for a short duration of six months, the only criteria which is to be taken into consideration was the seniority alone and nothing else. The respondents had categorically admitted that the petitioner was senior to the aforesaid employees and thus he was entitled to the same pay scale, since the petitioner was also promoted to the post of HPFS and was ranked senior to the aforesaid persons. 12. The respondents filed reply to the petition and supported the impugned order, whereby the claim of the petitioner for step-up was rejected. 12. The respondents filed reply to the petition and supported the impugned order, whereby the claim of the petitioner for step-up was rejected. It has been averred that the petitioner was promoted as ACF on ad-hoc basis on 23.01.1982 and on regular basis on 22.12.1983 and as such on completion of 16 years’ of service in HPFS cadre, he was given senior scale of Rs.12000-16350/- vide Notification dated 18.05.2001 w.e.f. 23.01.1998 whereas, the aforesaid persons namely, S/Sh. Rupa Ram and Bardas Kashyap were promoted on ad-hoc basis on 07.07.1979, earlier to the petitioner and on completion of 16 years’ service, they were given senior scale w.e.f 01.01.1996 i.e. Rs.12000-16350/-. Thus, no anomaly in pay fixation had crept in any point of time. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 14. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed as Forest Ranger with the respondent-Department earlier to S/Sh. Rupa Ram and Bardas Kashyap and joined his duties on 30.12.1961. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid employees were promoted earlier to the petitioner to the post of HPFS cadre, being SC category candidates. As per seniority position ranging from 89 to 145, the persons who were working in the cadre of Forest Rangers, being the feeder category to the post of HPFS cadre, were called for interview and the petitioner, who was at Serial No.161 could not be called, since he did not fall within the zone of consideration on account of insufficient seniority. The aforesaid employees were promoted as ACF on ad-hoc basis in the cadre of HPFS vide Notification dated 07.07.1979 and thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of ACF on ad-hoc basis on 23.01.1982. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was drawing higher pay than the aforesaid persons on the post of Forest Ranger, which was the feeding category to the post of ACF in the cadre of HPFS. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner, Sh. Rupa Ram and Sh. Bardas Kashyap were promoted to the post of HPFS on regular basis w.e.f. 22.12.1983 and thereafter, the petitioner was assigned seniority above the aforesaid employees on the principle of “catch-up” as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others , 1999 (7) SCC 209 . Rupa Ram and Sh. Bardas Kashyap were promoted to the post of HPFS on regular basis w.e.f. 22.12.1983 and thereafter, the petitioner was assigned seniority above the aforesaid employees on the principle of “catch-up” as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others , 1999 (7) SCC 209 . Once the petitioner had been promoted to the post of HPFS as ACF and assigned seniority above the aforesaid persons, the respondents ought to have granted him step-up, in view of provisions contained in FR 22C. 15. The principle of step-up is applicable in the present case for the reason that the employee who is senior in the feeder category and drawing more pay even after promotion to the next higher post after his junior, who is drawing more pay, is entitled to step-up. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner was senior in the feeder category of Forest Ranger and after promotion got the seniority in the same cadre, in which, juniors to him were promoted earlier to him. 16. 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 accepting Mr. 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 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. 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 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.” 17. Not only this, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had again the occasion to deal with the similar proposition 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 was granted upgradation under the ACP scheme, earlier who started drawing higher pay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the import of FR 22, which provides for 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, 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. [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. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. No interference of this Court is called for.” 18. In the present case, the law propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases is squarely applicable for the reason that in the present case, the petitioner was senior in the feeder category of Forest Rangers and was drawing more pay than his juniors mentioned above. Further even after his promotion to the post of ACF being HPFS cadre post, he was assigned seniority above his juniors and, therefore, he could not have been granted less salary, as compared to his juniors. 19. The plea taken by the respondents that petitioner was granted higher pay-scale after completion of 16 years’ of service from the date of his promotion, cannot be countenanced for the reason that, once the petitioner was promoted to the post of ACF, he had regained the seniority position as per law laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh’s case (supra), thus, could not have been paid less than his juniors. 20. It is admitted case of the respondents that the petitioner and his juniors, who were paid higher scale, were promoted to the post of ACF on regular basis w.e.f. 22.12.1983 and further it has categorically been admitted by the respondents-State that had the aforesaid employees were promoted on regular basis on 07.07.1979, rather than on ad- hoc basis, they would have been senior to the petitioner. Once it has been admitted by the respondents that the petitioner and the aforesaid employees were promoted to the post of HPFS on regular basis on 22.12.1983 and the petitioner became senior to the aforesaid employees, the petitioner could not have been granted the less pay. 21. Consequently, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 16.03.2012 (Annexure P-8) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to pay same pay-scale to the petitioner from the date when the aforesaid employees namely, Sh. Rupa Ram and Bardas Kashyap were granted, on notional basis and on actual basis three years prior to filing of the present petition. Rupa Ram and Bardas Kashyap were granted, on notional basis and on actual basis three years prior to filing of the present petition. In case arrears of step-up are not released in favour of the petitioner within three months from today, it shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the due date till its actual payment. 22. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.