01.04.2025 01.04.2025 State of Punjab and Others State of Punjab and Others Tej Paul v. …
Case Details
2025 (O&M) LPA-987-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH (116) LPA-987-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-01.04.2025 01.04.2025 State of Punjab and Others State of Punjab and Others Tej Paul Wadhwa Tej Paul Wadhwa Versus ……Appellants ……Appellants ……Respondent ……Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL ALOK JAIN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK **** Present: Mr. R.S. Pandher, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. R.S. Pandher, Sr. DAG, Punjab. **** ALOK JAIN, J. ALOK JAIN, J. CM-2444-LPA LPA-2025 Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application and arguments For the reasons mentioned in the application and arguments For the reasons mentioned in the application and arguments addressed, delay of 127 days in filing of the appeal is condoned. addressed, delay of 127 days in filing of the appeal is condoned. addressed, delay of 127 days in filing of the appeal is condoned.
Decision
disposed of accordingly. Application is disposed of accordingly. 2025 LPA-987-2025 1. Present appeal has been filed by the State raising challenge to Present appeal has been filed by the State raising challenge to Present appeal has been filed by the State raising challenge to the judgment dated 15.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP the judgment dated 15.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP the judgment dated 15.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP the judgment dated 15.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP NO. 18261 of 2018, whereby the petition filed by respondent (original writ NO. 18261 of 2018, whereby the petition filed by respondent (original writ NO. 18261 of 2018, whereby the petition filed by respondent (original writ NO. 18261 of 2018, whereby the petition filed by respondent (original writ titioner) was allowed. petitioner) was allowed. Manju 2025.04.15 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 (O&M) LPA-987-2025 (O&M) 2 2. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of present appeal as Brief facts of the case leading to filing of present appeal as Brief facts of the case leading to filing of present appeal as narrated by the Learned State Counsel are as follows: narrated by the Learned State Counsel are as follows: narrated by the Learned State Counsel are as follows: a. The respondent was appointed as Junior Engineer in the The respondent was appointed as Junior Engineer in the The respondent was appointed as Junior Engineer in the department on 18.01.1977 and was subsequently Appellant-department on 18.01.1977 and was subsequently department on 18.01.1977 and was subsequently romoted to the post of as SDO on 14.06.2011. However, promoted to the post of as SDO on 14.06.2011. However, romoted to the post of as SDO on 14.06.2011. However, another employee namely, Sucha Singh, who was junior to the another employee namely, Sucha Singh, who was junior to the another employee namely, Sucha Singh, who was junior to the respondent respondent (as he (as he joined joined department on the appellant-department on the appellant 23.06.1979) was also promoted to the post of SDO on 23.06.1979) was also promoted to the post of SDO on 23.06.1979) was also promoted to the post of SDO on ha Singh received higher 08.11.2012. Despite being junior, Sucha Singh received higher 08.11.2012. Despite being junior, Suc pay/salary than the respondent. Resultantly, the respondent pay/salary than the respondent. Resultantly, the respondent pay/salary than the respondent. Resultantly, the respondent submitted representation submitted representation submitted representation to to to the Chief Engineer (South) the Chief Engineer (South) the Chief Engineer (South) detailing the said pay anomaly. detailing the said pay anomaly. b. Addressing the issue, Appellant No. 2, vide letter dated Addressing the issue, Appellant No. 2, vide letter dated Addressing the issue, Appellant No. 2, vide letter dated e pay anomaly and attributed the 03.02.2014 acknowledged the pay anomaly and attributed the e pay anomaly and attributed the same to a revision of pay scale of Junior Engineer’s in 2011. It same to a revision of pay scale of Junior Engineer’s in 2011. It same to a revision of pay scale of Junior Engineer’s in 2011. It was further stated that the said matter was under review by the was further stated that the said matter was under review by the was further stated that the said matter was under review by the Finance Department. c. The The The respondent respondent respondent relied upon Government of Punjab’s relied upon Government of Punjab’s relied upon Government of Punjab’s letter dated 21.06.2000 wherein it was instructions issued by letter dated 21.06.2000 wherein it was letter dated 21.06.2000 wherein it was clarified that the administrative Department may remove the clarified that the administrative Department may remove the clarified that the administrative Department may remove the anomalies by way of stepping up pay of the employee to the anomalies by way of stepping up pay of the employee to the anomalies by way of stepping up pay of the employee to the level of the junior subject to certain conditions and the level of the junior subject to certain conditions and the level of the junior subject to certain conditions and the ued by the government subsequent similar instructions were issued by the government subsequent similar instructions were iss vide letter dated 13.10.2014. d. Due to changed circumstances, respondent again moved a Due to changed circumstances, respondent again moved a Due to changed circumstances, respondent again moved a representation before the department on which Appellant No. 2 representation before the department on which Appellant No. 2 representation before the department on which Appellant No. 2 vide letter dated 30.03.2015 rejected the same citing policy vide letter dated 30.03.2015 rejected the same citing policy vide letter dated 30.03.2015 rejected the same citing policy increase of pay scale of the Junior constraints, as due to the increase of pay scale of the Junior increase of pay scale of the Junior Engineers in view of the letter dated 01.12.2011, therefore the Engineers in view of the letter dated 01.12.2011, therefore the Engineers in view of the letter dated 01.12.2011, therefore the respondents cannot take the decision and Finance Department respondents cannot take the decision and Finance Department respondents cannot take the decision and Finance Department already taken up the matter. Manju 2025.04.15 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 (O&M) LPA-987-2025 (O&M) 3 e. The respondent retired on 30.04.2015 and his pension was The respondent retired on 30.04.2015 and his pension was The respondent retired on 30.04.2015 and his pension was sed on his last drawn salary at the time of retirement fixed, based on his last drawn salary at the time of retirement sed on his last drawn salary at the time of retirement and later on Sucha Singh also retired on 30.04.2016 and due to and later on Sucha Singh also retired on 30.04.2016 and due to and later on Sucha Singh also retired on 30.04.2016 and due to his higher last drawn salary, he continued to receive higher his higher last drawn salary, he continued to receive higher his higher last drawn salary, he continued to receive higher emoluments than the respondent. emoluments than the respondent. When respondent’s objections remained unadd f. ressed and legal When respondent’s objections remained unaddressed and legal notice went unanswered, he approached this court vide CWP notice went unanswered, he approached this court vide CWP notice went unanswered, he approached this court vide CWP No. 2039 of 2018, seeking quashing of the letters dated No. 2039 of 2018, seeking quashing of the letters dated No. 2039 of 2018, seeking quashing of the letters dated 03.02.2014 and 30.03.2015 vide which the stepping up of pay 03.02.2014 and 30.03.2015 vide which the stepping up of pay 03.02.2014 and 30.03.2015 vide which the stepping up of pay of the respondent was declined and the same was disposed off of the respondent was declined and the same was disposed off of the respondent was declined and the same was disposed off order dated 31.01.2018 by giving directions to the vide order dated 31.01.2018 by giving directions to the order dated 31.01.2018 by giving directions to the department for passing speaking order. department for passing speaking order. g. In compliance with court’s directions, appellant No. 1 vide In compliance with court’s directions, appellant No. 1 vide In compliance with court’s directions, appellant No. 1 vide order dated 01.05.2018, passed speaking order declining the order dated 01.05.2018, passed speaking order declining the order dated 01.05.2018, passed speaking order declining the e Department had respondent’s claim on the ground that Finance Department had respondent’s claim on the ground that Financ issued clarification letter dated 21.12.2015 according to which issued clarification letter dated 21.12.2015 according to which issued clarification letter dated 21.12.2015 according to which the case of the respondent the case of the respondent the case of the respondent is not covered under is not covered under is not covered under the the the instructions. 3. allowed the petition and returned the following findings: allowed the petition and returned the following allowed the petition and returned the following Learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 15.10.2024, Learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 15.10.2024, Learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 15.10.2024, 8. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone “7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. through the record with their able assistance. It is a settled principle of law that senior cannot get lesser It is a settled principle of law that senior cannot get lesser It is a settled principle of law that senior cannot get lesser salary than his junior unless and until there is exceptional salary than his junior unless and until there is exceptional salary than his junior unless and until there is exceptional circumstances such as the junior getting higher pay on ces such as the junior getting higher pay on ces such as the junior getting higher pay on account of higher qualification or on account of any account of higher qualification or on account of any account of higher qualification or on account of any punishment meted out towards senior. In the present case, punishment meted out towards senior. In the present case, punishment meted out towards senior. In the present case, no such circumstances exist rather, the junior Sucha no such circumstances exist rather, the junior Sucha no such circumstances exist rather, the junior Sucha to the fact Singh has been granted the higher pay only due to the fact Singh has been granted the higher pay only due that the petitioner got promotion from the post of Junior that the petitioner got promotion from the post of Junior that the petitioner got promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to that of Sub Divisional Officer prior to the Engineer to that of Sub Divisional Officer prior to the Engineer to that of Sub Divisional Officer prior to the structural revision of pay in the cadre Of Junior structural revision of pay in the cadre Of Junior structural revision of pay in the cadre Of Junior Engineer. After the structural change in the pay scale of Engineer. After the structural change in the pay scale of Engineer. After the structural change in the pay scale of Junior Engineer, Sucha Singh, who was working as a Singh, who was working as a Singh, who was working as a Junior Engineer, got higher pay and the same was Junior Engineer, got higher pay and the same was Junior Engineer, got higher pay and the same was Manju 2025.04.15 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 (O&M) LPA-987-2025 (O&M) 9. 4 reflected when he got promotion to the post of Sub reflected when he got promotion to the post of Sub reflected when he got promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Officer. It is a conceded position that Sucha Singh is junior to the It is a conceded position that Sucha Singh is junior to the It is a conceded position that Sucha Singh is junior to the as well as in petitioner in the Cadre of Junior Engineer as well as in petitioner in the Cadre of Junior Engineer the cadre of Sub Divisional Officer. That being so, the the cadre of Sub Divisional Officer. That being so, the the cadre of Sub Divisional Officer. That being so, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of step up of pay petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of step up of pay petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of step up of pay the Clarification dated the Clarification dated by placing reliance upon by placing reliance upon the Clarification dated by placing reliance upon 21.12.2015 (Annexure P-10). 10). supra), As per the judgment in Ram Sarup Ganda case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that where the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that where the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that where an employee is senior; giving higher pay to the junior, an employee is senior; giving higher pay to the junior, an employee is senior; giving higher pay to the junior, creates anomaly and such anomaly has to be rectified by creates anomaly and such anomaly has to be rectified by creates anomaly and such anomaly has to be rectified by stepping up the pay of the senior to that of junior. The stepping up the pay of the senior to that of junior. The stepping up the pay of the senior to that of junior. The relevant paragraph 8 of the said judgment is as under: “8. the said judgment is as under:- 10. As per the judgment in Ram Sarup Ganda case ( Rule 9 quoted above only says that the senior Rule 9 quoted above only says that the senior Rule 9 quoted above only says that the senior Government servants, who are direct recruits, are Government servants, who are direct recruits, are Government servants, who are direct recruits, are not entitled to get any stepping up case any not entitled to get any stepping up case any not entitled to get any stepping up case any anomaly arises regarding the receipt of lesser pay anomaly arises regarding the receipt of lesser pay anomaly arises regarding the receipt of lesser pay is not applicable to by them. However, the same is not applicable to by them. However, the same the respondents herein who joined the service as the respondents herein who joined the service as the respondents herein who joined the service as Group "D" employees and later got promotion to Group "D" employees and later got promotion to Group "D" employees and later got promotion to Group 'C" post by selection. If there is any Group 'C" post by selection. If there is any Group 'C" post by selection. If there is any anomaly to the effect that the senior Government anomaly to the effect that the senior Government anomaly to the effect that the senior Government servants are receiving lesser pay than their servants are receiving lesser pay than their servants are receiving lesser pay than their juniors, who entered the service from a different juniors, who entered the service from a different juniors, who entered the service from a different source of recruitment, certainly such senior source of recruitment, certainly such senior source of recruitment, certainly such senior Government servants are entitled to stepping up of Government servants are entitled to stepping up of Government servants are entitled to stepping up of their pay in order to bring them on par with the their pay in order to bring them on par with the their pay in order to bring them on par with the salary Which is being received by their juniors. salary Which is being received by their juniors. salary Which is being received by their juniors. douse in the scheme Which prohibits douse in the scheme Which prohibits There is no douse in the scheme Which prohibits such stepping up or salary which is a common such stepping up or salary which is a common such stepping up or salary which is a common practice applicable to all Government employees practice applicable to all Government employees practice applicable to all Government employees in case there is anomaly in the pay structure of the in case there is anomaly in the pay structure of the in case there is anomaly in the pay structure of the employees. the impugned judgment, the High employees. the impugned judgment, the High employees. the impugned judgment, the High Court has held thot the respond ents are entitled to Court has held thot the respondents are entitled to get the ACP scales that are applicable to Group get the ACP scales that are applicable to Group get the ACP scales that are applicable to Group "C" post, but the Rules, as such, do not provide for "C" post, but the Rules, as such, do not provide for "C" post, but the Rules, as such, do not provide for that. The Rules say, that if there are already two that. The Rules say, that if there are already two that. The Rules say, that if there are already two upgradations, then the concerned employees are upgradations, then the concerned employees are upgradations, then the concerned employees are not entitled cales. the benefit Of ACP scales. the benefit Of ACP s not entitled Nevertheless, if ACP scales are higher, they Nevertheless, if ACP scales are higher, they Nevertheless, if ACP scales are higher, they certainly entitled to the ACP scales at the starting certainly entitled to the ACP scales at the starting certainly entitled to the ACP scales at the starting to to Manju 2025.04.15 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 (O&M) LPA-987-2025 (O&M) 5 point, The date of giving such ACP scales is the point, The date of giving such ACP scales is the point, The date of giving such ACP scales is the date of entry into the service and though these date of entry into the service and though these date of entry into the service and though these respondents are entitled to get ACP scales and get respondents are entitled to get ACP scales and get respondents are entitled to get ACP scales and get ation of the ACP scales as applicable to Group ation of the ACP scales as applicable to Group fixation of the ACP scales as applicable to Group D" employees and in case there are anomalies to D" employees and in case there are anomalies to D" employees and in case there are anomalies to the effect that they, receive lesser pay than their the effect that they, receive lesser pay than their the effect that they, receive lesser pay than their juniors working in the same cadre/post, such juniors working in the same cadre/post, such juniors working in the same cadre/post, such senior Government servants are entitled to step up senior Government servants are entitled to step up senior Government servants are entitled to step up ry| to get it on par with the salary ry| to get it on par with the salary of their salary| to get it on par with the salary which is being received by their juniors. In the which is being received by their juniors. In the which is being received by their juniors. In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed. The result, all the appeals are partly allowed. The result, all the appeals are partly allowed. The appellants shall revise the pay scales of the appellants shall revise the pay scales of the appellants shall revise the pay scales of the respondents. In case of any anomaly, if the respondents. In case of any anomaly, if the respondents. In case of any anomaly, if the P scales, are in employees who, on fixation of ACP scales, are in employees who, on fixation of AC receipt of lesser salary than their juniors in the receipt of lesser salary than their juniors in the receipt of lesser salary than their juniors in the same Cadre/post, then their salary shall be same Cadre/post, then their salary shall be same Cadre/post, then their salary shall be stepped up accordingly. Revised orders shall be stepped up accordingly. Revised orders shall be stepped up accordingly. Revised orders shall be passed within a period of two months of the receipt passed within a period of two months of the receipt passed within a period of two months of the receipt of the copy of this order by the Government." of the copy of this order by the Government. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been Learned counsel for the respondents has not been Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to rebut that as per the judgment in Ram Ram able to rebut that as per the judgment in senior's pay has to Sarup Ganda's case (supra), senior's pay has to Sarup Ganda's case (supra), be stepped up equivalent to the junior, be stepped up equivalent to the junior, the the Further, no reason has been given Further, no reason has been given the Further, no reason has been given 10), Clarification dated 21.12.2015 (Annexure P-10), Clarification dated not to step up the salary of the junior. The only not to step up the salary of the junior. The only not to step up the salary of the junior. The only reason given is that in case in the cadre of Junior reason given is that in case in the cadre of Junior reason given is that in case in the cadre of Junior Engineer, the junior employee was getting more Engineer, the junior employee was getting more Engineer, the junior employee was getting more salary, he can still continue to get higher salary salary, he can still continue to get higher salary salary, he can still continue to get higher salary oted cadre of Sub than his senior in the promoted cadre of Sub than his senior in the prom Divisional Engineer. The Same is no ground. The Divisional Engineer. The Same is no ground. The Divisional Engineer. The Same is no ground. The seniority has to be maintained and unless and until seniority has to be maintained and unless and until seniority has to be maintained and unless and until there are differentiating facts relating to the there are differentiating facts relating to the there are differentiating facts relating to the qualification, performance of the duties or any qualification, performance of the duties or any qualification, performance of the duties or any punishment imposed upon the senior etc, th e punishment imposed upon the senior etc, the senior cannot be denied benefit of the higher senior cannot be denied benefit of the higher senior cannot be denied benefit of the higher salary or the salary equivalent being drawn by a salary or the salary equivalent being drawn by a salary or the salary equivalent being drawn by a junior and his salary needs to be stepped up. junior and his salary needs to be stepped up. Keeping in view the above, the respondents are Keeping in view the above, the respondents are Keeping in view the above, the respondents are directed to grant the petitioner the benefit of step directed to grant the petitioner the benefit of step directed to grant the petitioner the benefit of step ay equivalent to Sucha Singh, from the date ay equivalent to Sucha Singh, from the date up of pay equivalent to Sucha Singh, from the date Sucha Singh got promotion to the post of Sub Sucha Singh got promotion to the post of Sub Sucha Singh got promotion to the post of Sub in in in 11. 12. 13. Manju 2025.04.15 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 (O&M) LPA-987-2025 (O&M) 6 Divisional Officer in which cadre the petitioner Divisional Officer in which cadre the petitioner Divisional Officer in which cadre the petitioner was already working with all consequential was already working with all consequential was already working with all consequential benefits such as arrears etc. Let the order be benefits such as arrears etc. Let the order be benefits such as arrears etc. Let the order be eight weeks of the complied within a period of eight weeks of the complied within a period of receipt of copy of this order. receipt of copy of this order. The present wit petition is allowed in above The present wit petition is allowed in above The present wit petition is allowed in above terms.” 14. 4. Learned State Counsel vehemently argued that the claim for Learned State Counsel vehemently argued that the claim for Learned State Counsel vehemently argued that the claim for stepping up of the pay of respondent was declined in view of policy stepping up of the pay of respondent was declined in view of policy stepping up of the pay of respondent was declined in view of policy stepping up of the pay of respondent was declined in view of policy by Government of Punjab vide letter dated 21.12.2015. guidelines issued by Government of Punjab vide letter dated 21.12.2015. by Government of Punjab vide letter dated 21.12.2015. guidelines issued These guidelines were formulated in accordance with Government of These guidelines were formulated in accordance with Government of These guidelines were formulated in accordance with Government of These guidelines were formulated in accordance with Government of India’s letter dated 19.05.2009, which clarified that no stepping up of pay is India’s letter dated 19.05.2009, which clarified that no stepping up of pay is India’s letter dated 19.05.2009, which clarified that no stepping up of pay is India’s letter dated 19.05.2009, which clarified that no stepping up of pay is elied upon by permissible. Relevant paras of Letter dated 19.05.2009 relied upon by permissible. Relevant paras of Letter dated 19.05.2009 r permissible. Relevant paras of Letter dated 19.05.2009 r learned counsel are reproduced as follows: learned counsel are reproduced as follows: “10. No stepping up of pay in the pay band or grade pay would No stepping up of pay in the pay band or grade pay would No stepping up of pay in the pay band or grade pay would be admissible with regard to junior getting more pay than be admissible with regard to junior getting more pay than be admissible with regard to junior getting more pay than the senior on account of pay fixation under MACP the senior on account of pay fixation under MACP Scheme. 11. It is clarified that no past cases would be re that no past cases would be re-opened. Further, while implementing the MACP Scheme, the Further, while implementing the MACP Scheme, the differences in pay scales on account of' grant of financial differences in pay scales on account of' grant of financial upgradation under the old ACP Scheme (of August 1999) upgradation under the old ACP Scheme (of August 1999) and under the MACP Scheme within the same cadre shall and under the MACP Scheme within the same cadre shall not be construed as an anomaly” not be construed as an anomaly” 5. In view of the above letter dated 19.05.2009, the same was In view of the above letter dated 19.05.2009, the same was In view of the above letter dated 19.05.2009, the same was adopted by Govt. of Punjab and policy guidelines vide letter No. adopted by Govt. of Punjab and policy guidelines vide letter No. adopted by Govt. of Punjab and policy guidelines vide letter No. adopted by Govt. of Punjab and policy guidelines vide letter No. 10/06/2014- 4/ IFP2/346 dated 21.12.2015 were issued. Relevant extract of -4/ IFP2/346 dated 21.12.2015 were issued. Relevant extract of 4/ IFP2/346 dated 21.12.2015 were issued. Relevant extract of n by learned counsel is reproduced as under: the policy relied upon by learned counsel is reproduced as under: the policy relied upo “Here it is clarified that the Junior Engineer who got structural “Here it is clarified that the Junior Engineer who got structural “Here it is clarified that the Junior Engineer who got structural pay scale on the basis of the Finance Department above letter pay scale on the basis of the Finance Department above letter pay scale on the basis of the Finance Department above letter Manju 2025.04.15 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 (O&M) LPA-987-2025 (O&M) 7 dated 1st December, 2011 and thereafter on his promotion as dated 1st December, 2011 and thereafter on his promotion as dated 1st December, 2011 and thereafter on his promotion as and Sub Divisional Engineer and and then pn fixing his pay then pn fixing his pay then pn fixing his pay accordingly, and thereafter it can happen that on fixing the pay accordingly, and thereafter it can happen that on fixing the pay accordingly, and thereafter it can happen that on fixing the pay of this Sub Divisional Officer in this cadre, this Junior Official of this Sub Divisional Officer in this cadre, this Junior Official of this Sub Divisional Officer in this cadre, this Junior Official pay/grade pay can be more than his Senior Official Pay/Grade pay/grade pay can be more than his Senior Official Pay/Grade pay/grade pay can be more than his Senior Official Pay/Grade he Junior Engineer in his Pay, in these cases if the pay of the Junior Engineer in his Pay, in these cases if the pay of t upper cadre is more than his senior official then in this case, upper cadre is more than his senior official then in this case, upper cadre is more than his senior official then in this case, the pay of the Senior official will not be fixed equal to his the pay of the Senior official will not be fixed equal to his the pay of the Senior official will not be fixed equal to his Junior Official." 6. Learned State Counsel further emphasized the judgment relied Learned State Counsel further emphasized the judgment relied Learned State Counsel further emphasized the judgment relied upon by the Learned Single Judge and argued that the case of upon by the Learned S Ram Sarup ingle Judge and argued that the case of Ram Sarup has been incorrectly relied upon. In that case, both the senior and Ganda has been incorrectly relied upon. In that case, both the senior and has been incorrectly relied upon. In that case, both the senior and has been incorrectly relied upon. In that case, both the senior and C), but the senior junior employees were from the same cadre (Group-C), but the senior junior employees were from the same cadre (Group junior employees were from the same cadre (Group D, whereas the junior was employee had been promoted from Group-D, whereas the junior was employee had been promoted from Group employee had been promoted from Group C. Facts of that case differ significantly from directly recruited to Group-C. Facts of that case differ significantly from C. Facts of that case differ significantly from directly recruited to Group the present matter, and therefore, its ratio does not apply here. In the the present matter, and therefore, its ratio does not apply here. In the the present matter, and therefore, its ratio does not apply here. In the the present matter, and therefore, its ratio does not apply here. In the A, while the junior present case, the senior employee was already in Group-A, while the junior present case, the senior employee was already in Group present case, the senior employee was already in Group pay scale was revised under the 2011 employee was in Group-B when the pay scale was revised under the 2011 pay scale was revised under the 2011 employee was in Group policy. 7. 8. Heard learned state counsel at length and perused the record. Heard learned state counsel at length and perused the record Following chart reflects the dates of appointment and Following chart reflects the dates of appointment and Following chart reflects the dates of appointment and promotion of respondent/petitioner and his junior Sucha Singh: promotion of respondent/petitioner and his junior Sucha Singh: promotion of respondent/petitioner and his junior Sucha Singh: Tej Pal Sucha Singh 18.01.1977 23.06.1979 Appointed as JE 23.06.1979 Appointed as JE 14.06.2011 Promoted SDO as 08.09.2012 08.09.2012 Promoted Promoted SDO as as 9. The only dispute was that after the respondent/writ petitioner The only dispute was that after the respondent/writ petitioner The only dispute was that after the respondent/writ petitioner was promoted on 14.06.2011 as SDO, the pay band of the JEs was was promoted on 14.06.2011 as SDO, the pay band of the JEs was was promoted on 14.06.2011 as SDO, the pay band of the JEs was was promoted on 14.06.2011 as SDO, the pay band of the JEs was increased vide letter dated 01.12.2011. Subsequently, when Sucha Singh increased vide letter dated 01.12.2011. Subsequently, when Sucha Singh increased vide letter dated 01.12.2011. Subsequently, when Sucha Singh increased vide letter dated 01.12.2011. Subsequently, when Sucha Singh e was promoted on 08.12.2012 as SDO his pay was more than the was promoted on 08.12.2012 as SDO his pay was more than th was promoted on 08.12.2012 as SDO his pay was more than th Manju 2025.04.15 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 (O&M) LPA-987-2025 (O&M) 8 respondent/writ petitioner. Admittedly, the respondent/writ petitioner respondent/writ petitioner. Admittedly, the respondent/writ petitioner respondent/writ petitioner. Admittedly, the respondent/writ petitioner respondent/writ petitioner. Admittedly, the respondent/writ petitioner the said anomaly and raised his claim vide immediately represented qua the said anomaly and raised his claim vide the said anomaly and raised his claim vide immediately represented representation dated 19.09.2013 and he was informed that the matter had representation dated 19.09.2013 and he was informed that the matter had representation dated 19.09.2013 and he was informed that the matter had representation dated 19.09.2013 and he was informed that the matter had t and would be resolved. been taken up with the Finance Department and would be resolved. been taken up with the Finance Departmen been taken up with the Finance Departmen Respondent/writ petitioner again represented; however, appellant vide letter Respondent/writ petitioner again represented; however, appellant vide letter Respondent/writ petitioner again represented; however, appellant vide letter Respondent/writ petitioner again represented; however, appellant vide letter dated 30.03.2015, took shield of a notification issued by the Government of dated 30.03.2015, took shield of a notification issued by the Government of dated 30.03.2015, took shield of a notification issued by the Government of dated 30.03.2015, took shield of a notification issued by the Government of India in the year 2009 to deny the claim of the writ petitioner. The settled India in the year 2009 to deny the claim of the writ petitioner. The settled India in the year 2009 to deny the claim of the writ petitioner. The settled India in the year 2009 to deny the claim of the writ petitioner. The settled Ram Sarup Ganda (supra), preposition of law as reflected in the case of Ram Sarup Ganda (supra), preposition of law as reflected in the case of preposition of law as reflected in the case of the Hon’ble Apex Court could not be distinguished. It has been passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court could not be distinguished. It has been the Hon’ble Apex Court could not be distinguished. It has been the Hon’ble Apex Court could not be distinguished. It has been held therein as under: held therein as under: “7. Rule 9 reads thus :- "9. Non-admissibility of stepping up in certain cases. If admissibility of stepping up in certain cases. - If he service provides or circumstances warrant direct the service provides or circumstances warrant direct he service provides or circumstances warrant direct recruitment at the level of promotional post, in addition recruitment at the level of promotional post, in addition recruitment at the level of promotional post, in addition to the filling up of such posts through promotion, no to the filling up of such posts through promotion, no to the filling up of such posts through promotion, no benefit of pay upgradation to the Senior Government benefit of pay upgradation to the Senior Government benefit of pay upgradation to the Senior Government it to a post servant who happens to be a direct recruit to a post servant who happens to be a direct recru other than the post on which the junior Government other than the post on which the junior Government other than the post on which the junior Government servant is a direct recruitee, on the plea that the junior servant is a direct recruitee, on the plea that the junior servant is a direct recruitee, on the plea that the junior promotee is drawing more salary based on the benefit of promotee is drawing more salary based on the benefit of promotee is drawing more salary based on the benefit of ACP upgradation shall be admissible." (emphasis ACP upgradation shall be admissible." (emphasis ACP upgradation shall be admissible." (emphasis supplied) 8. Rule 9 quoted above only says that the senior Government ove only says that the senior Government ove only says that the senior Government servants, who are direct recruits, are not entitled to get any servants, who are direct recruits, are not entitled to get any servants, who are direct recruits, are not entitled to get any stepping up in case any anomaly arises regarding the receipt stepping up in case any anomaly arises regarding the receipt stepping up in case any anomaly arises regarding the receipt of lesser pay by them. However, the same is not applicable to of lesser pay by them. However, the same is not applicable to of lesser pay by them. However, the same is not applicable to ined the service as Group "D" the respondents herein who joined the service as Group "D" the respondents herein who jo employees and later got promotion to Group "C" post by employees and later got promotion to Group "C" post by employees and later got promotion to Group "C" post by selection. If there is any anomaly to the effect that the senior selection. If there is any anomaly to the effect that the senior selection. If there is any anomaly to the effect that the senior Government servants are receiving lesser pay than their Government servants are receiving lesser pay than their Government servants are receiving lesser pay than their source of juniors, who entered the service from a different source of juniors, who entered the service from a different Manju 2025.04.15 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 (O&M) LPA-987-2025 (O&M) 9 recruitment, certainly such senior Government servants are recruitment, certainly such senior Government servants are recruitment, certainly such senior Government servants are entitled to stepping up of their pay in order to bring them on entitled to stepping up of their pay in order to bring them on entitled to stepping up of their pay in order to bring them on par with the salary which is being received by their juniors. par with the salary which is being received by their juniors. par with the salary which is being received by their juniors. There is no clause in the scheme which prohibits such stepping There is no clause in the scheme which prohibits such stepping There is no clause in the scheme which prohibits such stepping up of salary which is a common practice applicable to all up of salary which is a common practice applicable to all up of salary which is a common practice applicable to all Government employees in case there is anomaly in the pay Government employees in case there is anomaly in the pay Government employees in case there is anomaly in the pay structure of the employees. By the impugned judgment, the structure of the employees. By the impugned judgment, the structure of the employees. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has held that the respondents are entitled to get High Court has held that the respondents are entitled to get High Court has held that the respondents are entitled to get re applicable to Group "C" post, but the the ACP scales that are applicable to Group "C" post, but the re applicable to Group "C" post, but the Rules, as such, do not provide for that. The Rules say, that if Rules, as such, do not provide for that. The Rules say, that if Rules, as such, do not provide for that. The Rules say, that if there are already two upgradations, then the concerned there are already two upgradations, then the concerned there are already two upgradations, then the concerned employees are not entitled to the benefit of ACP scales. employees are not entitled to the benefit of ACP scales. employees are not entitled to the benefit of ACP scales. they are certainly Nevertheless, if ACP scales are higher, they are certainly Nevertheless, if ACP scales are higher, entitled to the ACP scales at the starting point. The date of entitled to the ACP scales at the starting point. The date of entitled to the ACP scales at the starting point. The date of giving such ACP scales is the date of entry into the service and giving such ACP scales is the date of entry into the service and giving such ACP scales is the date of entry into the service and though these respondents are entitled to get ACP scales and though these respondents are entitled to get ACP scales and though these respondents are entitled to get ACP scales and roup "D" get fixation of the ACP scales as applicable to Group "D" get fixation of the ACP scales as applicable to G employees and in case there are anomalies to the effect that employees and in case there are anomalies to the effect that employees and in case there are anomalies to the effect that they receive lesser pay than their juniors working in the same they receive lesser pay than their juniors working in the same they receive lesser pay than their juniors working in the same cadre/post, such senior Government servants are entitled to cadre/post, such senior Government servants are entitled to cadre/post, such senior Government servants are entitled to is step up of their salary to get it on par with the salary which is step up of their salary to get it on par with the salary which being received by their juniors. In the result, all the appeals being received by their juniors. In the result, all the appeals being received by their juniors. In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed. The appellants shall revise the pay scales are partly allowed. The appellants shall revise the pay scales are partly allowed. The appellants shall revise the pay scales of the respondents. In case of any anomaly, if the employees of the respondents. In case of any anomaly, if the employees of the respondents. In case of any anomaly, if the employees who, on fixation of ACP scales, are in receipt of lesser salary who, on fixation of ACP scales, are in receipt of lesser salary who, on fixation of ACP scales, are in receipt of lesser salary han their juniors in the same cadre/post, then their salary than their juniors in the same cadre/post, then their salary han their juniors in the same cadre/post, then their salary shall be stepped up accordingly. Revised orders shall be shall be stepped up accordingly. Revised orders shall be shall be stepped up accordingly. Revised orders shall be passed within a period of two months of the receipt of the copy passed within a period of two months of the receipt of the copy passed within a period of two months of the receipt of the copy of this order by the Government. of this order by the Government. ales, any employee is 9. However, if upon revision of the pay-scales, any employee is 9. However, if upon revision of the pay liable to refund any amount, the Government shall not insist liable to refund any amount, the Government shall not insist liable to refund any amount, the Government shall not insist on refund of such amount. If any employee is entitled to get on refund of such amount. If any employee is entitled to get on refund of such amount. If any employee is entitled to get Manju 2025.04.15 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 (O&M) LPA-987-2025 (O&M) 10 any amount by way of pay revision, the said amount shall be any amount by way of pay revision, the said amount shall be any amount by way of pay revision, the said amount shall be from the made available to him within a period of six months from the made available to him within a period of six months date of receipt of the copy of this order by the Government.” date of receipt of the copy of this order by the Government.” 10. Perusal of the above clearly demonstrates that whenever a Perusal of the above clearly demonstrates that whenever a Perusal of the above clearly demonstrates that whenever a senior employee receives a salary lower than a junior due to an anomaly, senior employee receives a salary lower than a junior due to an anomaly, senior employee receives a salary lower than a junior due to an anomaly, senior employee receives a salary lower than a junior due to an anomaly, the senior is entitled to a step-up in pay equiva the senior is entitled to a step up in pay equivalent to that of the junior. 11. Learned Counsel for appellant could not demonstrate that the Learned Counsel for appellant could not demonstrate that the Learned Counsel for appellant could not demonstrate that the said anomaly is on account of any exceptional circumstances such as said anomaly is on account of any exceptional circumstances such as said anomaly is on account of any exceptional circumstances such as said anomaly is on account of any exceptional circumstances such as whether Sucha Singh was being paid a higher salary on account of any whether Sucha Singh was being paid a higher salary on account of any whether Sucha Singh was being paid a higher salary on account of any whether Sucha Singh was being paid a higher salary on account of any getting a lower higher qualification or the respondent/writ petitioner was getting a lower higher qualification or the respondent/writ petitioner was higher qualification or the respondent/writ petitioner was pay on account of any punishment imposed upon him. In the absence of any pay on account of any punishment imposed upon him. In the absence of any pay on account of any punishment imposed upon him. In the absence of any pay on account of any punishment imposed upon him. In the absence of any such exceptional circumstances, learned Single Bench has rightly held the such exceptional circumstances, learned Single Bench has rightly held the such exceptional circumstances, learned Single Bench has rightly held the such exceptional circumstances, learned Single Bench has rightly held the up of pay and respondent/petitioner to be entitled to the benefit of step-up of pay and respondent/petitioner to be entitled to the benefit of step respondent/petitioner to be entitled to the benefit of step ed 21.12.2015 being relied upon by the State also came into clarification dated 21.12.2015 being relied upon by the State also came into ed 21.12.2015 being relied upon by the State also came into clarification dat existence much after the claim was raised by respondent/writ petitioner. existence much after the claim was raised by respondent/writ petitioner. existence much after the claim was raised by respondent/writ petitioner. 12. In light of the above finding no infirmity in the order passed by In light of the above finding no infirmity in the order passed by In light of the above finding no infirmity in the order passed by learned Single Bench, accordingly the present appeal is dismissed. learned Single Bench, accordingly the present appea learned Single Bench, accordingly the present appea 13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of accordingly. of accordingly. (ALOK JAIN) (ALOK JAIN) JUDGE JUDGE (LISA GILL) JUDGE 01.04.2025 manju Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable:- Yes/No Yes/No Manju 2025.04.15 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document