Paramjit Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as a Constable in the Police Department in the month of March, 1988. Thereafter, he was promoted as a Head Constable in the year 1993 and as an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the year 2009. On 17.02.2018, after doing the upper course, the petitioner was promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police. In the month of December, 2018, the petitioner was drawing basic salary at the rate of Rs.24,030/- per month, whereas, one Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, who was otherwise junior to the petitioner, was drawing basic salary of Rs. 25,440/- per month. Similarly, one Sh. Dev Raj was drawing the basic salary of Rs.25,380/- per month, Sh. Sanjay Kumar was drawing basic salary of Rs. 25,310/- per month and there were other incumbents also who otherwise were junior to the petitioner, but were drawing more salary than the petitioner. The petitioner approached the Authorities for step up his pay to bring it at par with the incumbents junior to him. However, the prayer of the petitioner was rejected in terms of the impugned order on the ground that the pay of the petitioner cannot be stepped up because the difference in the pay scale had arisen on account of benefits granted under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, both old and new, which cannot be treated as an anomaly, in view of the notifications of the Government.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the rejection of the case of the petitioner for stepping up of the pay on the ground that the juniors were drawing more pay on account of the benefits conferred upon them under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 2087-2088 of 2022, titled Union of India & Ors. Vs. Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy & anr., decided on 06.04.2022, has categorically held that where a junior was drawing more pay on account of upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme and there was an anomaly, the pay of the senior was required to be stepped up.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General by referring to the reply filed by the respondents, reiterated that the difference in the pay scale was on account of the grant of benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme to the incumbents junior to the petitioner as and when it was due to them. He submitted that the benefit granted under the Scheme cannot be termed to be an anomaly vis-à-vis the pay of the petitioner, in light of the instructions which have been issued by the Finance Department.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the pleadings and documents appended therewith.

The facts are not much in dispute. It is an admitted case that there is a pay anomaly vis-à-vis the pay of the petitioner and the private respondent. It is also not in dispute that the private respondent is junior to the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that because there is a pay anomaly, the same has to be removed and his pay should be stepped up. The stand of the respondents is that because the junior is drawing more pay on account of the benefit granted to him under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, the same cannot be treated as a pay anomaly in terms of the instructions issued by the Finance Department and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim stepping up of his pay.

This Court is of the considered view that the ground on which the State has refused the stepping up of the pay of the petitioner to bring it at par with the person junior to him, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The ground taken by the State is that the pay of the private respondent was enhanced on account of the conferment of the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme upon him.

In the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy & anr. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealth with the exact same issue. Therein also, the Department had refused to step up the pay of the senior on the ground that the junior was drawing more salary on account of the benefit granted under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the said judgment that in a case where a junior was drawing more pay on account of upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme which resulted in an anomaly, the pay of the senior was required to be stepped up. Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court in this regard and directed the Department to step up the pay of the original writ petitioners in view of the pay scale which was granted to the juniors from the date they were drawing lesser pay than the juniors. The relevant para of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-

In light of the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as obviously, the ground on which the Department has refused the stepping up of the pay of the petitioner to bring it at par with his junior i.e. the private respondent, is not sustainable in the eyes of law, this petition is allowed. The act of the respondents of refusing to step up the pay of the petitioner to bring it at par with his junior, is held to be bad in law and the impugned orders and communications, in terms of the relief clause, are quashed and set aside.

It is further directed that the pay of the writ petitioner shall be stepped up and brought at par with respondent No.4, as from the date when the anomaly took place and accordingly, benefits be conferred upon the petitioner. In case, needful is done within a period of three months from today, then the amount to which the petitioner is entitled to, shall not entail any interest, however, in case the amount is not paid within three months from today, then the claim shall entail interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the passing of this judgment.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.