2026:HHC:18817-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4203 of 2022 Decided on: 21.05.2026 Dr. Rajender Sharma … Petitioner Versus Union of India and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Dinkar Bhaskar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.2 and 3. None for remaining respondents. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) CMP No.11547 of 2026 In view of the averments made in the application, whereby the applicant/petitioner is seeking early hearing of the petition, the same is allowed and stands disposed of. CWP No.4203 of 2022 2. With the consent of parties, the case is taken up for final consideration today itself. 3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “A) That Order dated October 2017 (Annexure P-8) issued by the Director of Higher Education, Shimla may be quashed and set aside. (B) That the pay of the petitioner may be stepped up and 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:18817-DB his pay may be ordered to be brought at par with proforma respondent and be fixed at the same amount i.e., Rs. 81,232/- as on date of filing of the Petition along with the consequential increases. (C) That the petitioner may further be paid the arrears of enhanced pay from the date when pay of the proforma respondent has been fixed at a higher amount as compared to the petitioner. (D) That Clause 9.10 & 9.11 of UGC Regulations 2010 along with Clauses 7(xxi) & 7(xxiii) of Appendix-I of UGC Regulations 2010 (Annexure P-3) may also be quashed and set aside. (E) That Clauses 7(xxi) and 7(xxiii) of Notification dated 15.10.2009 (Annexure P-4) may also be quashed and set aside.” 4 The grievance of the the petitioner is that there exists pay anomaly in his pay as compared to the proforma respondent, who happens to be his junior. The prayer of the petitioner is for removal of the said pay anomaly and stepping up of his pay to bring it at par with proforma respondent. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner, at the time of filing of the petition, was being paid less salary than the proforma respondent, who was junior to him, as Associate Professor (Physics). Therefore, the petitioner had approached this Court for stepping up of his pay. He submitted that it is settled law that whenever there exists an anomaly in the pay scale of senior and junior, then the pay of the senior has to be stepped up to bring it at par with his junior. By referring to 3 2026:HHC:18817-DB Annexure P-8, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the stand of the Higher Education Department that the pay of the petitioner cannot be stepped up in light of the opinion of Joint Controller (F&A) that when a junior employee gets more pay due to an additional increment earned on acquiring a higher qualification, the same will not constitute an anomaly for his senior to claim stepping up with reference to juniors, is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because in the present case it is not as if the proforma respondent had acquired a qualification higher than what was being possessed by the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner did his Ph.D in the year 1994 and two increments were given to him in lieu thereof, whereas the proforma respondent did Ph.D in the year 2008 when three increments were permissible on acquiring the Ph.D. Degree. This lead to pay anomaly between the petitioner and proforma respondent. He submitted that at the end of the day, fact of the matter remained that the junior was getting more salary than the senior and in this backdrop, the act of the respondents of not stepping up the pay of the petitioner to bring it at par with the proforma respondent is not sustainable in law. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that there is no merit in the petition. By referring to the reply filed by respondent No.3, he submitted that the proforma respondent obtained his Ph.D. Degree in the year 2008 and in terms of the UGC Pay Scale of 2006, he was entitled for three advance 4 2026:HHC:18817-DB increments, whereas the petitioner was granted only two increments, as per UGC Pay Scale, 1996, when he acquired the Ph.D. Degree. He submitted that in this case, as the proforma respondent was drawing more salary on account of three increments, which were granted to him on acquiring Ph.D. Degree, therefore, this matter was discussed at the Directorate level and the Authorities were of the opinion that where a junior gets more pay on account of an additional increment earned on acquiring higher qualification, same is not to be construed as an anomaly for stepping up the pay of senior and therefore, the petitioner does not deserve the relief prayed for. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents on record. 8. In the present case, few facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was senior to the proforma respondent. It is also not in dispute that the anomaly in the case of petitioner occurred on account of three increments which were given to the proforma respondent on his acquiring Ph.D. Degree. 9. Now, what spells out from the impugned order as well as reply of respondent No.3 is that the reason why respondent No.3 is not stepping up the pay of the petitioner to bring it at par with his junior is that as per the said respondent, in case a junior gets more pay due to grant of additional increments earned on acquiring a 5 2026:HHC:18817-DB higher qualification, the same will not constitute an anomaly for stepping up the pay of senior employee with reference to junior. 10. Even if, said stand of the Directorate is to be accepted, then also this Court is of the considered view that in the facts of this case, stepping up of the pay of the petitioner to bring it at par with the proforma respondent could not have been refused by the respondents. 11. In terms of the stand of the Department, what will not constitute an anomaly for stepping up pay of a senior with reference to junior is that if a junior gets more pay due to additional increments earned on acquiring a higher qualification. 12. In the present case, the Department has not been able to demonstrate that the proforma respondent acquired qualification higher than the one possessed by the petitioner. 13. Had it been the case that proforma respondent was given additional increment for acquiring a qualification which was not possessed by the petitioner, then may be this stand of the State could have been appreciated. Herein, incidently, both the petitioner and the private respondent acquired Ph.D. Degree, but when the petitioner acquired Ph.D. Degree, he was given two increments as per the UGC Norms, 1996, whereas when the proforma respondent later on acquired the Ph.D. Degree in terms of the UGC Regulations, he was given three increments. 14. Thus, anomaly occurred on account of the difference in 6 2026:HHC:18817-DB the number of increments granted to the petitioner and proforma respondent and not on the proforma respondent acquiring a higher qualification than the one possessed by the petitioner. 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gurcharan Singh Grewal and Another Versus Punjab State Electricity Board, (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 94, while dealing with the case where there was an anomaly in the pay scale of a senior as compared to a junior, on account of difference of incremental benefits, has been pleased to hold that even if anomaly is on account of difference in increments in the scale, the same is still contrary to the settled principle of law that a senior cannot be paid lessor salary than his junior and in such circumstances, even if there was a difference in the incremental benefit in the pay scale, such anomaly should not have been allowed to continue and ought to have been rectified. 16. Thus, it is evident from the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that difference in the pay scale of a senior and junior, may be on account of grant of increments to junior has to be rectified by stepping up the pay of the senior. 17. Herein also, the difference in the pay scale of the petitioner as compared to the proforma respondent was on account of the grant of one additional increment as compared to the petitioner to the proforma respondent, for acquiring the Ph.D. Degree and this anomaly, which resulted in the pay scale of the petitioner as compared to the proforma respondent ought to have 7 2026:HHC:18817-DB been rectified even in light of the above mentioned judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 18. Accordingly, in light of above discussion, this petition is allowed. The act of the respondents of not stepping up the pay of the petitioner to bring it at par with the proforma respondent is held to be bad in law. Order Annexure P-8 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to remove the anomaly in the pay scale of the petitioner as compared to the proforma respondent as from the date when the anomaly occurred, till the same remained. As the petitioner has already superannuated, the arrears to which the petitioner is entitled to, be released in his favour within a period of three months from today, failing which, the same shall entail interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the petition. 19. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 21, 2026 (Rishi)