Jai Singh and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

¶1

( 2025:HHC:44589-DB )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 4304 of 2021 along with connected matters

¶4

Reserved on: 12.12.2025 Decided on: 19.12.2025

¶5

CWP No. 4304 of 2021
Desh Raj and others	...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P and others	...Respondents
CWP No. 271 of 2023
Rajeev and others	...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P and others	...Respondents
CWP No. 4200 of 2023
Monika and others	...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P and others	...Respondents
CWP No. 6348 of 2023
Jai Singh and others	...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P and others	...Respondents

¶6

( 2025:HHC:44589-DB )

¶7

2

¶8

Coram

¶9

The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the petitioner(s):	Mr.Nitin Thakur, Advocate the petitioners in CWP No. of 2021. Mr.Daleep Singh Kaith Ms.Saroj, Advocates for petitioners in CWP Nos. 4200 & 6348 of 2023.	for 4304 and the 271,
For the respondents:	Mr. Sidharth Jalta, D Advocate General for respondents-State in all petitions.	eputy the the

¶11

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

¶12

Since common question of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, therefore, the same have been taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by way of a common judgment.

¶13

All these petitions have been filed with the main relief for removing anomaly and stepping up the pay scale of the petitioners, since their juniors are drawing more pay than them.

¶14

For adjudicating the claim in the writ petitions, the facts of writ petition bearing CWP No.4304 of 2021 are being taken up. The substantive prayers made in this writ petition are reproduced

¶15

hereunder:-

¶16

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶17

( 2025:HHC:44589-DB )

¶18

3

¶19

i) A writ of mandamus directing respondents to remove the anomaly up stepping up the pay scale of the Petitioners alongwithupto date interest of 9% till the date of realization; and/or

¶20

ii) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Para 4(g) & (h) of Annexure P-3 and declaring the same as illegal and irrational; and/or

¶21

iii) A writ of mandamus directing respondents not to apply Para 4(g) & (h) of Annexure P-3 to the Petitioners; and /or

¶22

iv) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Annexure P-8 i.e. rejection order dated 03.07.2021 passed by the respondents; and/or

¶23

v) Further issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent authorities to pay arrears to the Petitioners from the date it became due till the date of realization alongwith upto date interest of 9%; and/or.

¶24

The main grouse of the petitioners in the writ petitions is that they have been appointed as Constables in the respondentDepartment before July, 2008, except petitioner No.108, who was appointed on 30^th September, 2008. The persons who were appointed after the petitioners and junior to them are drawing more salary than the petitioners. On coming to know about the factum of drawing more salary by their juniors, one of the petitioners made representation to the respondents-State highlighting his grievance. The comparative chart was also annexed showing therein that the persons who were inducted in the year 2010 are getting more pay to the persons recruited on 01.07.2008.

¶25

( 2025:HHC:44589-DB )

¶26

4

¶27

A Perusal of the chart appended clearly revealed that the Constables, who were appointed on 01.07.2008, being paid an amount of Rs.17130/- per month as on 01.10.2020 and the person who was appointed after them on 01.01.2010 was paid an amount of Rs.17650/- per month as on 01.10.2020.

¶28

The representation made by one of the petitioners was rejected vide order dated 03.07.2021, stating therein that the matter was examined by the Finance Department and the anomaly, which has arisen, is as a result of grant of benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme, (hereinafter referred as ACP Scheme) and the benefits allowed/granted under the ACP Scheme are always personal to an incumbent/employee. It was conveyed that this aspect has already been clarified that no stepping up of pay in the pay band and grade pay would be admissible with regard to junior getting more pay to his senior on account of pay fixation under the scheme vide para 4(g) & (h) of new ACP Scheme notified on 09.08.2012.

¶29

The claim of the petitioners in the writ petition is on the anvil of settled law that the junior cannot draw more salary to his senior and the reasons assigned to reject the claim on the plea that progressions granted under the ACP Scheme are personal to the employee is arbitrary and unconstitutional, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh Grewal

¶30

( 2025:HHC:44589-DB )

¶31

5

¶32

and another vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, (2009) 3 SCC 94 .

¶33

The respondents-State filed reply to the petition and supported the decision, whereby the claim raised by the petitioners was rejected. The respondents-State laid emphasis on the instructions issued by it and stated that once an employee has got three enhancements/financial upgradations i.e. progression under the new or old ACP Scheme, or promotion or any other financial enhancement, except the annual increment or the general pay revision based on pay commission, he will not be entitled for placement in the next grade pay in the ACPS.

¶34

It has further been averred in the reply that as per instructions dated 09.08.2012 (Annexure P-3), more particularly, Clauses 4(g) and (h) provide that the progression granted under the scheme shall be purely personal to the employee and shall have no relevance to his seniority position. It has further been stated that as per the said instructions, no stepping up of pay in the pay band and grade pay would be admissible with regard to junior getting more pay than the senior on account of pay fixation under this scheme. The relevant Clauses of the instructions i.e. 4(g) & 4(h) are reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶35

“(g). The progressions granted under this scheme shall be purely personal to the employee and shall have no relevance to his

¶36

( 2025:HHC:44589-DB )

¶37

6

¶38

seniority position. As such, the senior employees shall have no claim of parity of pay on the ground that the junior employee working on the same post has got higher pay or grade pay under this scheme. While implementing this scheme, the difference in pay scales on account of grant of financial upgradation under the old ACP Scheme (15.12.98) and under this scheme within the same cadre shall not be construed as an anomaly.

¶39

(h). No stepping up of pay in the pay band and grade pay would be admissible with regard to junior getting more pay than the senior on account of pay fixation under this scheme.

¶40

The respondents-State further stated that the provisions

¶41

in the instructions have rational as well as legal and ensure parity of the employees in the matter of grant of incentives under the scheme. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that formation of scheme is a matter of Government policy and the Courts cannot interfere with the recommendations of the expert body like the Pay Commission and its recommendations. Once the recommendations of the Pay Commission have been accepted by the Government and implemented, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court.

¶42

Admittedly, the juniors to the petitioners are getting more salary, which fact has not been disputed by the respondentsState in its reply and also by the learned counsel representing the respondents-State. The only plea which has been taken is based on the instructions issued by the State Government on 09.08.2012, wherein, it has been specifically mentioned that the progressions

¶43

( 2025:HHC:44589-DB )

¶44

7

¶45

granted under the ACP Scheme shall be purely personal to the employees and shall have no relevance to his seniority position.

¶46

Learned counsel representing the respondents-State has further laid much emphasis on Clause (h), wherein, it has been mentioned that no stepping up of pay in the pay band and grade pay would be admissible with regard to junior getting more pay to the senior on account of pay fixation under this scheme.

¶47

I have heard the learned counsel representing the petitioners as well as learned Deputy Advocate General representing the State and further carefully perused the record.

¶48

No doubt, the provisions contained in instructions dated 09.08.2012 envisage that the progression granted under the ACP Scheme shall be purely personal to the employee and shall have no relevance to his seniority position, but at the same time, it is settled by now in catena of judgments that junior cannot get higher pay to his senior. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh Grewal and another vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, (2009) 3 SCC 94 has held that a senior cannot be paid a lesser salary to his junior and relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced herein below:-

¶49

“15. Mr Chhabra also attempted to justify the disparity in the pay of Shri Shori and Appellant 1 by urging that Appellant 1 had been granted the promotional scale with effect from 1- 1-1996, where the benefits of increment in the scale were

¶50

( 2025:HHC:44589-DB )

¶51

8

¶52

lower. On the other hand, Shri Shori who joined the services of the Board in 1974, was granted the promotional scale on 17-5-2006, with effect from 1- 9-2001, 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 Appellant 1 getting a lower salary in the promotional scale.

¶53

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 Appellant 2 alone and that the High Court should have granted relief to Appellant 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 Para 7 of the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents that the grievance of Appellant 2 duly addressed, there ought to have been at least some discussion in the judgment of the High Court regarding the claim of Appellant 1. Unfortunately, the case of Appellant 1 was not considered at all by the High Court.

¶54

Something may be said with regard to Mr Chhabra’s submissions about the difference in increment in the scales in which Appellant 1 and Shri Shori are placed, but the same is still contrary to the settled principle of law that a senior cannot be paid a lesser salary than his junior. In such circumstances, even if there was a difference in the incremental benefits in the scale given to Appellant 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 Appellant 1 was also stepped up to that of Shri Shori, as appears to have been done in the case of Appellant 2.”

¶55

The Hon’ble Supreme Court had also the occasion to

¶56

deal with the similar issue regarding anomaly in the pay-scale in respect of a senior and has held that if the junior is getting higher pay to his senior, senior is entitled to the same pay and the

¶57

( 2025:HHC:44589-DB )

¶58

9

¶59

employer has to step-up his pay as that of his junior. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment in Union of India and others vs.

¶60

C.R. Madhava Murthy and another, (2022) 6 SCC 183 are

¶61

reproduced herein below:-

¶62

“9. Having heard Ms. Madhavi 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.

¶63

xxx xxx xxx

¶64

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.”

¶65

This Court was informed by learned counsel representing the petitioners on 28.02.2025 that the issue raised in the instant petition is covered by the decision of this Court in CWP No.1747 of 2023 , titled, Dinesh Kumar and others vs. State of H.P and others , decided on 09.10.2023 and the counsel representing the respondents-State had taken time to have

¶66

( 2025:HHC:44589-DB )

¶67

10

¶68

instructions in the matter. When the matter was again taken up on 28.04.2025, it was apprised that the respondents-State have preferred LPA against the judgment passed in CWP No.1747 of 2023, titled, Dinesh Kumar and others vs. State of H.P and others. When the matter was taken up on 12.12.2025, learned Deputy Advocate General had fairly conceded before the Court that the LPA filed by the respondent-State, which was time barred, had been dismissed, since the State had not been able to explain the delay in filing the appeal.

¶69

It was also brought to the notice of the Court that the respondents-State had preferred SLP against the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 05.05.2025 in CMP(M) No.1680 of 2024 , titled, State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Dinesh Kumar and others , before the Hon’ble Apex Court. However, the SLP was also dismissed vide order dated 17.10.2025. 18. Learned Deputy Advocate General has fairly admitted that the issue raised in these writ petitions has been dealt with and the judgment passed in Dinesh Kumar’s case (supra) is applicable to the facts of present petitions, wherein, the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to consider the Clauses of instructions dated 09.08.2012 and held that the order rejecting the claim of the petitioners in the writ petition was quashed and set aside and the

¶70

( 2025:HHC:44589-DB )

¶71

11

¶72

directions were given to the State to step-up the pay of the petitioners to make at par with the pay of their junior namely Shri Hemant Kumar. Since the respondents-State have admitted that the petitioners who are seniors are getting less pay to their juniors, as is evident from the comparative chart placed on record at pages 116 to 119, there is no justification to deny the claim raised by the petitioners in these petitions and as such they are entitled to the same pay scale as being paid to their juniors.

¶73

So far as the claim having been raised for quashing clauses 4(g) and 4(h) as contained in Annexure P-3 is concerned, since the issue raised by the petitioners has already been adjudicated by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Dinesh Kumar’s case (supra), which judgment has attained finality upto the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court will not venture into that aspect, except for quashing the rejection orders dated 03.07.2021 and 01.11.2021 passed by the respondents-State.

¶74

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, all the writ petitions are allowed and the rejection orders dated 03.07.2021 and 01.11.2021, whereby the prayers made by the petitioners came to be rejected are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to step up the pay of the petitioners to make at par with their juniors from the due date. The consequential benefits shall be paid

¶75

( 2025:HHC:44589-DB )

¶76

12

¶77

to the petitioners within three months from today. However, it is made clear that the arrears on account of step-up will be paid to the petitioners three years prior to the institution of the petitions. However, no order as to costs.

¶78

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶79

( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) December 19, 2025 Judge (naveen)

Jai Singh and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Singh and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Oriental Insurance Company Vs Shanti Devi

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Leela Muni Oraon

Bidhi Chand Vs State of Hp and Another

Nausahad Ahmed Vs Vipan Kumar

Mahanti Vs Vidya Devi

National Insurance Company Vs Vipin Kumar