JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud,J (Oral). Both these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment as they involve the same point of law. 2. Adverting to the facts in CWP(T) No. 1783 of 2008 titled Pratibha Kumari Vs. State of H.P and another, the petitioner pleads that she was appointed as Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.400-600/- on 28.5.1988 with the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, Dharamshala. The pay scale of the petitioner was re-fixed as Clerk on 1.1.1996 at Rs. 3780/- and on 1.5.1996 at Rs. 3900/-and after grant of higher pay scale, her pay was fixed at Rs. 3120-6200/- w.e.f. 28.5.1996. Thereafter, her pay was fixed as Junior Assistant in the pay band of Rs. 4400-7000/- w.e.f. 19.6.2000. The petitioner has placed on record a notification Annexure:A/1 issued by the Board of School Education where her name figures at serial No. 3. She pleads that Smt. Sandhya Devi, Sh.Kirpa Ram and Sh.Bharat Bhushan also joined the same post in May, 1988 and were placed in the same pay scale vide Annexure:A1. Vide Annexure:A2, the respondent-Board recommended the placement of the petitioner and others as Junior Assistants in the revised pay scale of Rs. 4400-150-5000-160-5800-200-7000/-. The name of the petitioner is at serial No. 62 of this notification. The petitioner submits that Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Sh. Manohar Lal and others were three year junior to her having been appointed on 13.9.1991 and 18.9.1991. The petitioner has made a representation vide Annexure:A3 to bring these facts to the notice of the respondent-Board but vide Annexure:A4, she was informed that S/Shri Rakesh Gupta , Sh. Manohar Lal and Sh. Khem Chand have filed Original Application No. 136 of 2002 and it is for this reason that they were placed in the higher pay scale. 3. Reply to the application was filed by the department where it says that the representation of the applicant dated 10.1.2007 is still under consideration till the final order was not passed in the petition referred to. The application has been opposed on merits as well. By an order dated 23.11.2011 passed by this Court, it directed: “Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General to ascertain as to whether the judgment rendered by the Single Bench of this Court in Ram Lal Vs. State CWP(T) No.8451 of 2008, has attained finality or not. The application has been opposed on merits as well. By an order dated 23.11.2011 passed by this Court, it directed: “Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General to ascertain as to whether the judgment rendered by the Single Bench of this Court in Ram Lal Vs. State CWP(T) No.8451 of 2008, has attained finality or not. Affidavit in that regard shall be filed both by respondents No.1 as also respondent No.2.” 4. In compliance, it has been stated by the State that the Revenue Department has implemented the judgment passed in CWP(T) No. 8451 of 2008 titled Ram Lal Sharma and others Vs. State of H.P. and another at its own and has not consulted the Finance Department which was a pre-requisite as the issue involved financial implications and pay revision rules as well and no appeal/LPA has been preferred against the said judgment. The affidavit admits that the judgment has been implemented. 5. In CWP(T) No.8451 of 2008 titled Ram Lal Sharma’s case, the Court was seized to the matter where the petitioners therein were appointed as Clerks in the respondent-department and they were promoted as Junior Assistants on 12.7.1999 and 21.1.2000. Their pays were also fixed in terms of F.R-22(1)(a)(i) on 14.9.2000, 13.10.1999 and 13.8.1999 respectively but by an order dated 31.5.2001, a decision was taken by the State Government to fill up the post of Junior Assistant by way of placement instead of treating it as promotional post. It was by virtue of this notification that the petitioners were declared as Junior Assistants in the pay scale of Rs.4400-7000/- and their pay was re-fixed. This Court held that the pay scale granted to the petitioners therein could not be unilaterally withdrawn. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. Jagdish Pandey and others, 2010 (6) Scale 651, the Court allowed the writ petition quashing and setting aside the orders which sought to withdraw the pay scale. Subsequently by judgment in CWP(T) .No. 9106 of 2008 titled Jagdish Chand and another Vs. State of H.P. and another decided on 20.4.2011, the judgment passed in Ram Lal Sharma’s case supra was implemented. 6. The prayer in the petition is that her salary be refixed with applicants Sh. Subsequently by judgment in CWP(T) .No. 9106 of 2008 titled Jagdish Chand and another Vs. State of H.P. and another decided on 20.4.2011, the judgment passed in Ram Lal Sharma’s case supra was implemented. 6. The prayer in the petition is that her salary be refixed with applicants Sh. Bharat Bhushan and Smt. Sandhya Devi by stepping up the same and by grant of arrears along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 7. In CWP(T).No. 9105 of 2008 titled Paras Ram and others Vs. State of H.P. and another, the grievance of the petitioners is that no recovery be effected from them and the order dated 27.9.2001 Annexue:A9 superseding the earlier order Annexure:A12 stating that the recoveries of the amount already paid to the incumbents who were earlier promoted as Junior Assistant and the pay at the reduced rate would be applicable from 31.5.2001. 8. The case of the petitioners therein was that they were appointed as Clerks, thereafter designated as Senior Clerks in higher pay scale and ultimately promoted to the post of Junior Assistants in the pay scale of Rs. 4400-150-5000-160-5800-200-7000/-by an order Annexure:A3. Thereafter, notification dated 1.9.1998 Annexure:A2 was issued with respect to the bifurcation of the cadre of Clerks w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and promotion to the post of Senior Assistant with clarification that prior to 1.1.1996 the cadre of Clerks was bifurcated into three categories in the ratio of 20:40:40 i.e. Clerks, Senior Clerks and Junior Assistants. What has been urged before me is that the case of Sh. Paras Ram and others is squarely covered by the decision in CWP(T) No. 8451 of 2008 where, under similar circumstances this Court had quashed the recovery of this amount. 9. Turning to Pratibha Kumari’s case supra, I find no justification on the record to have granted pay scale in the lower grade than that of her junior as pleaded therein. The writ petition deserves to be allowed on the ground that the petitioner has been granted a pay scale lower than that of her junior, who admittedly appointed much later than her. 10. In these circumstances, writ petition is allowed. I direct that the pay of petitioner-Pratibha Kumari be fixed in the same pay band from the date as has been granted to Sh.Bharat Bhushan and Smt. Sandhya Devi, who were admittedly appointed along with her. She will be entitled to the arrears. 11. 10. In these circumstances, writ petition is allowed. I direct that the pay of petitioner-Pratibha Kumari be fixed in the same pay band from the date as has been granted to Sh.Bharat Bhushan and Smt. Sandhya Devi, who were admittedly appointed along with her. She will be entitled to the arrears. 11. Adverting to the case of Paras Ram and others, find that this case is squarely covered by the decision in CWP(T) No. 8451 of 2008 titled Ram Lal Sharma, and others Vs. State of H.P. and another and Jagdish Chand and another Vs. State of H.P. and another (CWP(T) No. 9106 of 2008) and shall follow the directions stated therein. No recoveries etc. shall be effected as directed in those two decisions.