Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16882 (HP)

Purbia Ram v. Union of India

2026-03-30

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2026
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing and setting the impugned order dated 01.11.2016 (Annexure P-5). (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant three increments to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.1975, 18.01.1991 & 31.01.2001 as per the old and new ACP Scheme, since the petitioner has served against one post and one pay scale for more than requisite number of years i.e. 12 and 10 years. (iii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to carry re-fixation of pay of the petitioner in the same manner as has been carried by the respondent department qua the private respondent. iv) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant the pension to the petitioner equivalent to the private respondent in light of the principle of parity, since the petitioner is senior to the private respondent in all respect, but he has been granted lesser pension as compared to the private respondent.” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that there exists an anomaly in his pension as compared to the pension which is being paid to his junior. Mr. Roop Lal Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner took the Court through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith and submitted that the petitioner was engaged as a Constable with the respondents on 24.11.1962 and his junior, namely, Shri Dulo Ram was appointed against the said post on 10.12.1966. He further submitted that the petitioner superannuated in the year 2001, whereas the private respondent superannuated in the year 2006. Learned Counsel further submitted that the grievance of the petitioner is that whereas the pension being drawn by his junior Dulo Ram is Rs.5412/-, the petitioner is being paid pension of Rs.3372/- per month only which is bad in law. Learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner was denied three increments to bring him at par with Dulo Ram and it is on account of this that an anomaly exists. Accordingly, he prayed that present petition be allowed by directing the respondents to pay the petitioner the same pension as is being paid to his junior. No other point was urged. Accordingly, he prayed that present petition be allowed by directing the respondents to pay the petitioner the same pension as is being paid to his junior. No other point was urged. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent-Union of India submitted that till the time, the petitioner was in service, there was no pay anomaly in the pay being drawn by the petitioner as compared to his junior Sh. Dulo Ram. He submitted that the petitioner was always drawing higher salary as compared to his junior Dulo Ram. Learned Counsel further submitted that after superannuation of the petitioner, his pension was fixed as per last pay drawn by him. He further submitted that as Shri Dulo Ram retired in the year 2006, his pension was fixed as per last salary drawn by him and therefore, as it is not a case of pay anomaly resulting in anomaly in pension, the present petition deserves dismissal. Learned Counsel also submitted that the contention of the petitioner that he has been denied the ACP is also totally incorrect for the reason that firstly no such plea was ever raised by him till the time he was in service and now also, by way of this writ petition filed in the year 2017, the plea is being raised to justify the claim. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 5. The impugned order Annexure P-5 gives certain facts which are not in dispute. In terms of this order, the petitioner was appointed in SSB as a Constable on 24.11.1962 at basic pay of Rs. 95/- per month and Shri Dulo Ram was appointed as a Constable on 10.12.1966 at basic pay of Rs. 95/- per month. The petitioner was promoted to the rank of Head Constable (GD) w.e.f. 01.04.1975 and his basic pay was fixed at Rs. 302/- in the pay scale of Rs. 260-6-326-EB-8-350. On the said date, Dulo Ram was drawing basic pay of Rs. 290/- in the pay scale of Rs. 225-5-260-6-290-EB-6-308/-which was less than the pay of the petitioner. Order further demonstrates that Shri Dulo Ram was promoted to the rank of Head Constable (GD) w.e.f. 15.02.1980 and his pay was fixed at Basic Pay of Rs. 320/-, whereas, on the same date, the petitioner was drawing basic pay of Rs. 290/- in the pay scale of Rs. 225-5-260-6-290-EB-6-308/-which was less than the pay of the petitioner. Order further demonstrates that Shri Dulo Ram was promoted to the rank of Head Constable (GD) w.e.f. 15.02.1980 and his pay was fixed at Basic Pay of Rs. 320/-, whereas, on the same date, the petitioner was drawing basic pay of Rs. 326/- which was more than the basic pay of Shri Dulo Ram. This order further demonstrates that the petitioner was further promoted as S.I. (GD) w.e.f. 18.01.1991 and his basic pay was fixed at Rs. 1640/-, whereas on the same date, Dulo Ram was drawing basic pay of Rs. 1450/- i.e. less than the basic pay of the petitioner. Dulo Ram was promoted to the post of SI (GD) w.e.f. 13.06.1994 and his basic pay was fixed at Rs. 1640/- whereas the basic pay being drawn by the petitioner on the same date was Rs. 1820/-.Upon the implementation of the 5th Central Pay Commission, the pay of the petitioner was fixed at basic pay Rs. 6025/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996, whereas the basic pay of private respondent Dulo Ram was fixed at Rs. 5500/- which was again less than the basic pay of the petitioner. The petitioner superannuated from service on 31.01.2001 and he was authorised pension taking into account the last pay drawn by him, i.e. basic pay of Rs. 6900/- and even as on the said date, the basic pay of Shri Dulo Ram was Rs. 6550/- which was again less than that of the petitioner i.e. last pay being drawn by the petitioner. On account of the implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission, the basic pay of Dulo Ram was fixed at Rs. 13490+ GP of Rs. 4200/-, as he was drawing the basic pay of Rs. 7250/- in the re-revised scale of Rs.5500-175-9000 on 01.01.2006. Thereafter, Shri Dulo Ram superannuated on 31.01.2006 and his pension was authorised taking his last pay drawn as 13490+4200 GP. 6. In the backdrop of above, the Authority held that there was no pay anomaly up to the date of retirement of the petitioner in comparison to the pay of his junior and therefore, the contention of the petitioner that there was an anomaly in the pension of the petitioner was incorrect. 7. This Court concurs with the findings returned by the Authority. 7. This Court concurs with the findings returned by the Authority. It is not the case of the petitioner that till the date of his superannuation, there was any pay anomaly between him and his junior Dulo Ram. The facts that have been narrated hereinabove, clearly demonstrate that as on the date when the petitioner superannuated, he was drawing more salary than his junior. But natural, the pension of the petitioner was fixed on the basis of last salary being drawn by him when he retired. Similarly, the pension of Shri Dulo Ram was fixed on the basis of last pay drawn by him when he retired. As Dulo Ram served for five more years as compared to the petitioner, obviously, with the passage of time, his pay scale increased and thus, his pension was rightly fixed on the basis of last pay being drawn by him. 8. This cannot be a ground to agitate the issue of a junior drawing more pension. As far as the issue of non-grant of alleged three increments is concerned, except bald assertions in this regard, no argument was addressed to demonstrate as to how the petitioner was denied three increments during his service career. It is also a matter of record that as upto his superannuation, this issue was never agitated by the petitioner. Accordingly, in light of above discussion, as this Court does not find any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.