2026:HHC:2953 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10053 of 2025 Decided on: 20 .07 .2026 Subhash Kumar and others … Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Prem P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Dy.AG. : Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have approached this Court inter alia praying for the following reliefs:- “(a) to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 b) to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to remove the salary anomaly and fix the petitioners' pay at par with or above that of their junior colleagues (detailed in Para 3 of the petition) performing similar duties, from the date such anomaly arose; c) to direct the respondents to pay the arrears of difference in salary to the petitioners from the date when this anomaly first arose, along with interest thereon @ 18% p.a.; 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:2953 d) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof to give full justice to the petitioners in the circumstances of the case and may pass such further writ, order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper, just and expedient in the circumstances of the case;” 2. The petitioners are serving as Constables in the Himachal Pradesh Police Department. They have approached this Court praying for quashing of Annexure P-4, in terms whereof, their representation, seeking stepping up of their pay at par with their juniors stands rejected. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners, who are serving as Constables with the Police Department, were recruited as such in the year 2000-2001. Learned Counsel further submitted that the junior of the petitioners, whose details are given in para-2 of the petition, are drawing more salary and a higher pay scale than the petitioners. He further submitted that the petitioners made a representation to the authorities with the prayer that their pay be brought at par with their juniors mentioned above but the Authority, in terms of the impugned order, has rejected their representations on the ground that the pay difference is on account of grant of Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) which cannot be termed as a pay anomaly. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that here is a case 3 2026:HHC:2953 where admittedly there is a pay anomaly between the pay of the petitioners as compared to their juniors. He further submitted that a perusal of the reply filed by the respondents demonstrates that this fact situation is even not disputed by the respondent-Department but their stand is that the pay difference is on account of subsequent grant of ACP to the juniors which cannot be termed as a pay anomaly. By relying upon the judgment of 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, learned Counsel submitted that in terms of this judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that if a senior is drawing less salary than his junior, then the same is a pay anomaly and the pay of the senior is required to be stepped up at par with the junior. Accordingly, he submitted that the stand of the state is not in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General has referred to the reply filed by the State and has submitted that the difference in pay between the petitioners and their juniors is a consequence of the ACP Scheme policy notified by the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 09.08.2012, copy whereof is appended with the reply as Annexure R-3/1. Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that as the higher pay in this situation is not a pay 4 2026:HHC:2953 anomaly and does not warrant stepping up of the pay of the senior as per policy framed by the Government, the case of the petitioners was rightly rejected by the authority and the petitioners have no case seeking the stepping up of their pay at par with their juniors. No other point was urged. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 6. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents are not removing the pay anomaly between their pay as compared to their juniors. The stand of the State is that the factum of juniors drawing more pay is on account of grant of ACPS to them, which cannot be termed as a pay anomaly in terms of the notification dated 09.08.2012 (Annexure R-3/1). 7. 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 a junior is drawing more pay on account of upgradation under the ACP Scheme and there is an anomaly, in such a situation, the pay of the senior is required to be stepped up at par with the junior. Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under: “9. Having heard Ms. Madhvi Divan, learned ASG and 5 2026:HHC:2953 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 the 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; 6 2026:HHC:2953 (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-22C. 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. No interference of this Court is called for. 12. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeals deserve to be dismissed and the same are dismissed, accordingly.” 7 2026:HHC:2953 8. A perusal of the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court demonstrates that wherein there is a case that a junior is drawing more pay scale on account of upgradation of the pay of the junior under the ACP Scheme, the difference which accrued in the pay of the senior and junior is indeed a pay anomaly and the same has to be removed by stepping up the pay of the senior, who is drawing less salary from the junior. 9. Therefore, in light of the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and in the backdrop of the fact that there is an admission on the part of the Department that the juniors in the present case are drawing more pay than the petitioners, who are senior to them, this petition has to be allowed. 10. The stand of the State that the difference in pay is on account of grant of ACP Scheme to the juniors and therefore, the same cannot be termed to be a pay anomaly, cannot be sustained. The same is indeed a pay anomaly in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore the same is liable to be removed. 11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 27.01.2025 (Annexure P-4), is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to step up the pay of the present petitioners and bring it at par with the juniors, whose details are given in para- 8 2026:HHC:2953 2 of the writ petition as from the date when the anomaly took place. However, the stepping up shall be notional and actual monetary benefits shall only accrue upon the petitioners prior to three years as from the date of filing the earlier writ petition by the petitioners i.e. CWP No. 12129 of 2024. Stepping up and arrears be made good within three months from the date of judgment. In case, needful is done within 3 months, the due amount will not entail any interest but if the same is not done within the said period, then due amount shall entail simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of judgment. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 20 , 2026 (narender)