Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 860 (HP)

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. SANTOSH KUMARI

2009-10-12

R.B.MISRA, RAJIV SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. The present petition has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 9.1.2001 of the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal rendered in OA (D) No. 273 of 1996. The original respondent Sh. Shadi Lal died during the pendency of the present writ petition and his legal representatives were substituted. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that original respondent Sh. Shadi Lal, husband of respondent No.1-A and father of respondents No. 1-B to 1-E (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent’ for convenience sake) was appointed as an Electrician on 11.2.1966 in the pay scale of Rs. 60-90. He was promoted to the post of Electrical Charge-man on 30.1.1967 in the pay scale of Rs.130-250. However, the pay scale was reduced to Rs. 120-250 vide letter dated 1.2.1968. The pay scale of the lower post of the Electrician was revised to Rs. 140-300 with effect from 9.12.1976. Respondent No.4, Sh. Ranjit Singh, added in the original application as party-respondent, was appointed as Electrician on 3.5.1966. He was junior to respondent. However, the pay of respondent No.4 was revised from time to time and was higher than that of the respondent. The respondent filed original application before the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The same was allowed by the learned Tribunal on 9.1.2001. 3. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable. He further argued that the learned Tribunal has misconstrued/mis-interpreted Annexures A-4 and A-5, respectively. 4. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate has supported the judgment dated 9.1.2001 passed by learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. 5. We have heard the leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 6. Respondent Shadi Lal (since deceased) was appointed as an Electrician on 11.2.1966. Respondent No.4 has not been impleaded by the State in the present case. However, it will be necessary to refer to his service particulars in order to effectively adjudicate upon this petition. 7. He was appointed as Electrician on 3.5.1966. Respondent Shadi Lal was promoted to the post of Electrical Charge-man on 30.1.1967. Surprisingly, respondent No.4 was granted higher pay scale by the State. The State has failed to prove why the respondent was granted lower pay scale than the person, who was junior to him i.e. respondent No.4, Ranjit Singh. 7. He was appointed as Electrician on 3.5.1966. Respondent Shadi Lal was promoted to the post of Electrical Charge-man on 30.1.1967. Surprisingly, respondent No.4 was granted higher pay scale by the State. The State has failed to prove why the respondent was granted lower pay scale than the person, who was junior to him i.e. respondent No.4, Ranjit Singh. The respondent was promoted on 13.1.1967 as Electrical Charge-man in the pay scale of Rs. 130-250. Respondent No.4 at that time was granted pay scale of Rs. 45-60 vide Annexure A-2. The fact of the matter is that senior cannot be paid lesser salary than his junior and this principle has been reiterated by their Lordship of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Er. Gurcharan Singh Grewal and another versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others, 2009 (1) Scale 535. Their Lordships have held as under: “Something may be said with regard to Mr. Chhabra’s submissions about the difference in increment in the scales which the appellant No.1 and Shri Shori are placed, but the same is still contrary to the settled principle of law that a senior cannot be said lesser salary than his junior. In such circumstances, even if, there was a difference in the incremental benefits in the scale given to the appellant No.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 the appellant No.1 was also stepped up to that of Shri Shori, as appears to have been done in the case of the appellant No.2” 8. The learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal has correctly appreciated Annexures A-4 and A-5 placed on record while allowing the original application. The action of the State to grant lesser pay to the respondent vis-à-vis respondent No.4 was bad in law. 9. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.