JUDGMENT : P.S. RANA, J. 1. Present civil writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pleaded therein that on dated 15.12.1954 petitioner was appointed as compositor in the Printing and Stationery Department which is Class III post and on dated 16.12.1961 petitioner joined the department of Industry Government of Himachal Pradesh and served there till the year 1972. It is pleaded that on dated 30.11.1972 petitioner joined back the Printing and Stationery Department as computer and thereafter petitioner was promoted as Assistant Section Holder in July 1973. It is also pleaded that on dated 28.10.1978 petitioner was promoted as Section Holder on adhoc basis and thereafter on regular basis on 19.11.1979 and thereafter petitioner was promoted as General Foreman on dated 27.2.1986. It is pleaded that on dated 5.10.1992 one Shri Gurbachan Singh Assistant Controller (Printing) had attack of paralyses and he could not join back his duties till his retirement and due to this reason petitioner was asked to perform the duty of Assistant Controller (Printing) being the senior most Section Foreman and petitioner performed the duty of Assistant Controller (Printing) till dated 31.3.1994 but no benefit of additional pay was granted to petitioner as provided under the provision of FR 49 (iii) by the respondent department. It is pleaded that on dated 31.3.1994 petitioner retired from the service of respondent department after attaining the age of superannuation. It is also pleaded that on dated 29.8.1994 petitioner submitted a representation to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh for the payment of officiating pay against the post of Assistant Controller (Printing) w.e.f. 3.10.1992 to 31.3.1994 and on dated 4.3.1996 petitioner once again made a representation on the same ground as was submitted on dated 29.8.1994 but nothing was conveyed to the petitioner. It is pleaded that petitioner sought information from the State Government regarding his case which was supplied to petitioner vide letter dated 9.5.2013 and after perusal of information petitioner came to know that case of petitioner was rejected on the ground that no ex-post-facto sanction could be granted in the matter of promotion. It is pleaded that on dated 15.6.2013 petitioner was informed by the respondent department under RTI that ex-post-facto sanction was granted to one Shri Som Dutt Sharma against the post of Controller w.e.f. 28.11.1990 vide notification dated 26.9.2012. It is pleaded that on dated 15.6.2013 petitioner was informed by the respondent department under RTI that ex-post-facto sanction was granted to one Shri Som Dutt Sharma against the post of Controller w.e.f. 28.11.1990 vide notification dated 26.9.2012. It is pleaded that rejection of claim by respondent department for grant of ex-post-facto sanction to the post of Assistant Controller (Printing) be quashed and further pleaded that respondent be directed to give all benefits to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Controller (Printing) w.e.f. 3.10.1992 to 31.3.1994 and petitioner be granted all service consequential benefits. Prayer for acceptance of writ petition sought. 2. Per contra reply filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 pleaded therein that petitioner has retired from service on dated 31.3.1994 after serving for 34 years and further pleaded that present petition is filed after 20 years of superannuation which is barred by delay and latches. It is admitted that petitioner was promoted on regular basis to the post of Section Holder in the year 1978. It is pleaded that Shri Gurbachan Sharma remained on medical leave w.e.f. 3.10.1992 to 7.7.1994 and thereafter retired on medical ground on 8.7.1994. It is pleaded that during medical leave of Deputy Controller Shri Som Dutt performed the duties of Assistant Controller (Printing) upto his retirement on dated 31.1.1993. It is pleaded that no orders were issued by the competent authority directing the petitioner to hold the charge of Assistant Controller (Printing). It is pleaded that petitioner could not be allowed to get the benefit of higher post. Prayer for dismissal of petition sought. 3. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents and Court also perused the entire record carefully. 4. Following points arise for determination in this civil writ petition:- 5. Whether petitioner is entitled for the salary for the post of Assistant Controller (Printing) w.e.f. 1.2.1993 to 31.3.1994 as alleged? 6. Final Order. Findings on point No.1 5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner had worked as officiating Assistant Controller (Printing) w.e.f. 1.2.1993 to 31.3.1994 and he is entitled for the salary of the post of Assistant Controller (Printing) on the concept of equal pay for equal work is accepted for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Findings on point No.1 5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner had worked as officiating Assistant Controller (Printing) w.e.f. 1.2.1993 to 31.3.1994 and he is entitled for the salary of the post of Assistant Controller (Printing) on the concept of equal pay for equal work is accepted for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is proved on record that Moti Ram Kainthla petitioner was Senior General Foreman in the department of Printing and Stationery department and he retired from service on 31.3.1994. It is also proved on record that Shri Gurbachan Sharma the then Assistant Controller (Printing) had applied for two days casual leave for 3.10.1992 and 5.10.1992. It is pleaded that thereafter Gurbachan Sharma suffered the paralyses attack and he remained on leave upto 7.7.1994 and thereafter he took voluntary retirement on dated 8.7.1994. It is also proved on record that during the leave period of Gurbachan Sharma Moti Ram Kainthla petitioner worked as Assistant Controller (Printing) in addition to his duties and it is also proved on record that petitioner received the information under RTI Act from the department and department had submitted written report that Shri Moti Ram Kainthla had worked upon the post of Assistant Controller (Printing) w.e.f. 1.2.1993 to 31.3.1994. Thereafter case was forwarded for additional salary to the petitioner qua additional charge of post of Assistant Controller (Printing). Thereafter competent authority observed that retrospective promotion should not be encouraged. Thereafter case of petitioner for payment of additional salary for the post of Assistant Controller (Printing) was rejected. After rejection of case petitioner filed present civil writ petition. It was held in case reported in AIR 1994 SC 265 titled Vijay Kumar and others vs. State of Punjab and others that as per Article 39 (d) of the Constitution of India there shall be equal pay for equal work for both men and women. It was held in case reported in (1989)4 SCC 459 titled Harbans Lal and others vs. State of H.P. and others that as per Articles 14 and 16 and 39 (d) of Constitution of India there should be equal pay for equal work. It was held in case reported in (1989)4 SCC 459 titled Harbans Lal and others vs. State of H.P. and others that as per Articles 14 and 16 and 39 (d) of Constitution of India there should be equal pay for equal work. It was held in case reported in AIR 1991 SC 1173 titled Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union vs. Union of India and others that as per Articles 14, 16, 12 39 (d) of Constitution of India there should be equal pay for equal work. It was held that this right has assumed the status of fundamental right and it was held that this right is applicable to the establishment of State. It was held in case reported in AIR 1993 SC 286 titled State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Pramod Bhartiya and others that employee is entitled for equal pay for equal work in view of Articles 14, 16 (1) and 39 (d) of Constitution of India. It was held in case reported in AIR 1990 SC 495 titled U.P. Rajya Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., U.P. vs. Its Workmen that employee is entitled for equal pay for equal work. In view of admission of fact by competent authority in the information given under RTI Act that petitioner had worked as Assistant Controller (Printing) w.e.f. 1.2.1993 to 31.3.1994 in addition to his own work it is held that petitioner is entitled for additional salary for the post of Assistant Controller (Printing) w.e.f. 1.2.1993 to 31.3.1994. 6. Submission of learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents that petition has been filed at belated stage and same be dismissed on the concept of delay and latches and acquiescence is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that representation was filed by the petitioner before the competent authority for redressal of his grievances and it is also proved on record that result of representation was not communicated to the petitioner with reasons and thereafter petitioner obtained the information under RTI Act and thereafter after obtaining the information under RTI Act petitioner had filed present petition expeditiously. Hence delay is properly explained in present petition and delay if any is condoned in the ends of justice keeping in view the fact that petitioner is an old and senior citizen of India and keeping in view that representation was filed by petitioner within time and decision of representation was not communicated to petitioner. Point No. 1 is answered in affirmative. Final Order 7. In view of findings on point No. 1 it is held (1) That petitioner is entitled for salary for the post of Assistant Controller (Printing) w.e.f. 1.2.1993 to 31.3.1994 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. It is further held that salary already received by the petitioner as General Foreman during the aforesaid period will be calculated for determining the salary for the post of Assistant Controller (Printing). Rejection of claim of petitioner for the salary by respondent is quashed. Arrears of salary will be paid to petitioner within one month from today with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. (2) It is further held that petitioner will not be entitled to any other service benefits because no promotional order of petitioner was passed by competent authority upon the post of Assistant Controller (Printing). Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous application (s) if any also stands disposed of.