JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge This appeal arises out of judgment dated 3.12.2012 of the learned Single Judge in CWP(T) No. 9805 of 2008 whereby the Original Application filed by the appellant was ordered to be dismissed. 2. We will consider in detail the facts of the case and law applicable since the appellant in the earlier LPA preferred by him being LPA No. 9 of 2013 had made a grievance that the learned Single Judge had completely omitted to advert to the stand taken by the appellant that the factual position noted in the reply-affidavit filed by the State was contrary to the record as was demonstrated by the appellant in the supplementary affidavit filed on record. Further grievance was made that this aspect of the matter had not at all been considered by the learned Single Judge, though it was argued. However, the learned counsel sought liberty to withdraw the appeal and filed Review Petition before the learned Single Judge as is clear from the order dated 22.7.2013 annexed with the appeal as Annexure A-2. From the record, it is further clear that the Review Petition No. 4019 of 2013 had in fact been preferred before the learned Single Judge, who vide his order dated 22.7.2013 observed that there was no error apparent on the face of record and resultantly, the Review Petition was dismissed. 3. The appellant had approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal vide Original Application No. 3298 of 2003 which was subsequently registered as CWP(T) No. 9805 of 2008 upon transfer to this Court on account of abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal. 4. The appellant had claimed the following reliefs: “(1) That Annexure A-9, fixing the pay of the applicant lower than his pretty junior may kindly be declared as nonest in the eyes of law and therefore struck down being illegal. (2) That the orders passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal on 23.6.1995 duly upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court, Supreme Court may kindly be ordered to be implemented before retirement of applicant. (2) That the orders passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal on 23.6.1995 duly upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court, Supreme Court may kindly be ordered to be implemented before retirement of applicant. (3) The Annexure A-11, qua the applicant’s retirement at serial No.33 may kindly be ordered to be struck down or may be ordered to be kept in abeyance till the decision of the enquiry which has been pending for 22 years, as the applicant apprehends that due to malafide acts of omission and commission the applicant would be put to further more unnecessary harassment financially and otherwise. (4) That the amounts which have so far been with-held regarding TA and DA, increments and pay fixation may kindly be ordered to be paid before the retirement of the applicant so that the amounts of pension and gratuity may not be delayed. (5) Any other relief as the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the peculiar circumstances may kindly be allowed. (6) Costs of the application may be awarded to the applicant. (7) Records of the case may be ordered to be summoned. (8) That the applicant may be ordered not to be retired as per FR 56 which is applicable to the employees H.P. Government.” 5. The precise case of the appellant was that he had joined as Junior Engineer under the respondents on 17.12.1966 and was serving in the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department. The appellant was promoted as Senior Junior Engineer on 14.9.1988 and prior to this, he had been transferred to Irrigation and Public Health on 9.9.1988. He was further promoted as Assistant Engineer vide order dated 16.10.2001. The appellant through undated representation annexed with the record as Annexure A-3, claimed revised pay scale and vide another undated representation annexed as Annexure A-4, claimed stepping up of pay under Fundamental Rules (for short ‘FR-22’) on the ground that the appellant was senior and his junior namely Sh. Tilak Raj Chaunta was drawing Rs.13,125/- on 10.2.2000 while the applicant was being paid only Rs.10,025/-. 6. The respondents filed the reply wherein number of preliminary objections regarding cause of action, suppression of facts, mis-joinder of reliefs etc. were raised. Tilak Raj Chaunta was drawing Rs.13,125/- on 10.2.2000 while the applicant was being paid only Rs.10,025/-. 6. The respondents filed the reply wherein number of preliminary objections regarding cause of action, suppression of facts, mis-joinder of reliefs etc. were raised. On merits, it was averred that insofar as reliefs No. 3 and 4 are concerned, as per record of respondent No.2 a complaint against the appellant was received regarding nonpayment of water charges and installation of water meter in the blocks. The matter had been confidentially enquired into and during the year 1980 and after that the fact finding report of the same was closed on 17.7.1992. Therefore, this relief claimed by the appellant was based on conjectures and surmises. The provisions of FR 56 were not applicable to his case. Insofar second relief as claimed is concerned, it was submitted that for the similar relief the appellant had filed Original Application No. 1542 of 1997 and thereafter, another petition being O.A. No. 3491 of 2000. During the pendency of these petitions, the services of the appellant were taken back from the Irrigation and Public Health Department to Public Works Department as per his seniority. Thereafter, his case was also settled for the intervening period of absence between the period 1988 to 1995 as the leave of the kind due and therefore, the orders passed by the Tribunal stood implemented in its letter and spirit. With respect to the relief No.1, it has averred that the pay fixation matter of the applicant after the verdict of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 35 of 1990 on the basis of “available service record” was considered by the respondent No.2 and accordingly his pay was fixed. The detailed explanation was also given as to in what manner and why the retiral benefits of the appellant could not be settled. The claim of the appellant regarding stepping up of his pay with that of his junior Tilak Raj was also denied. 7. It appears that on 28.2.2005 the Tribunal directed the respondents to produce the records of the case on 12.4.2005. The claim of the appellant regarding stepping up of his pay with that of his junior Tilak Raj was also denied. 7. It appears that on 28.2.2005 the Tribunal directed the respondents to produce the records of the case on 12.4.2005. Instead of producing the record, a supplementary affidavit purportedly in compliance to the order dated 28.2.2005 (supra) was filed by the respondents which only states about the record having been collected from the various places where the appellant was posted and served and on the basis of that a sum of Rs.1,17,504/- upto 3/2005 on account of arrear of penal house rent was due from the appellant. What is the more important is the reply filed to the supplementary affidavit on behalf of the appellant, which is reproduced hereinunder:- “I, B.K. Sharma S/o Sh. Jagan Nath Sharma, Retd. Assistant Engineer, aged 69 years, presently residing at Solan, do solemnly affirm and declare as under:- 1. That the above noted Writ Petition is pending in this Hon’ble Court. The respondent-State has filed a supplementary affidavit with regard to Sh. Tilak Raj of PWD Department, who was junior to the petitioner. 2. That the respondent has submitted that the final seniority list of Junior Engineer (Civil) has been published on 20.7.2011, the extract of which is Annexed as Annexure P-1 where I (B.K.Sharma) as Junior Engineer was placed at Sr.No.338 and Sh. Tilak Raj, Junior Engineer was placed at Sr. No. 397 which shows that he was junior to me and Tilak Raj was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 26.8.1978 on ad-hoc basis and I was promoted as regular Assistant Engineer on 1.2.2000. The pay which was granted to Sh. Tilak Raj has to be granted to me by stepping up, according to FR-22. It is also further submitted that Sh. Tilak Raj was never promoted regularly and he retired also as officiating Assistant Engineer. The extract of seniority list vide Annexure P-2 does not show in the list of Assistant Engineers. 3. That in view of the contents of para-2 above, I (B.K.Sharma), be senior to Tilak Raj have to be granted equal pay which given to Sh. Tilak Raj, when I was promoted on 1.2.2000 in the scale of Rs. 13125/- which was given to him at that time.” 8. In response to this, the respondents filed a detailed counter-affidavit, which is reproduced hereinunder: “1. Tilak Raj, when I was promoted on 1.2.2000 in the scale of Rs. 13125/- which was given to him at that time.” 8. In response to this, the respondents filed a detailed counter-affidavit, which is reproduced hereinunder: “1. That pay drawn by Sh. Tilak Raj, is on account of fixation of his pay with effect from the date he was promoted as Assistant Engineer, whereas Sh. B.K.Sharma was promoted as Assistant Engineer, almost after 22 years gap and his pay was fixed from the date he was promoted. 2. That pay fixation under FR-22 for equalization at par to the junior person is applicable for the same cadre/categories whereas Sh. Tilak Raj was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 26.08.1978 and Sh. B.K.Sharma remained Junior Engineer, upto 31.01.2000, due to which the pay of Sh. B.K.Sharma could not be fixed equal to Sh. Tilak Raj being difference in the service categories of both the employees. 3. That Sh. B.K.Sharma, Diploma holder Junior Engineer (Civil) Class-III (Non-Gazetted) for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) (Class-1-Gazetted) against the vacancies available for the Diploma Holder Junior Engineer (Civil) Category in the years, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 respectively, was lower in merit as compared to those Diploma Holder Junior Engineer (Civil) recommended by the earlier DPC for promotion to the said posts. 3. That the departmental promotion committee met for making promotions to the post of Assistant Engineer on 1.08.1996 in Public Works Department. Name of the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer but he was not found suitable. 4. That review DPC cannot be convened because name of Sh. B.K.Sharma has already been considered for the promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer by the DPC held on 20, 21, 22 and 29.09.1997 and he was not recommended for promotion on the basis of merit. The minutes of this DPC were reviewed on 11/16/03/1998 and further reviewed on 21.01.2000. The name of Sh. B.K.Sharma was considered in these review DPC also but he was not recommended for promotion. However, he was recommended to be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) by the DPC held on 27, 28.9.2000 and 14.11.2000 and accordingly he was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) vide orders dated 7.12.2000. Therefore, as is evident from the record he could not get any benefit on account of review DPC.” 9. However, he was recommended to be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) by the DPC held on 27, 28.9.2000 and 14.11.2000 and accordingly he was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) vide orders dated 7.12.2000. Therefore, as is evident from the record he could not get any benefit on account of review DPC.” 9. When the matter came up before the learned Single Judge it appears that inspite of having claimed several reliefs in the Original Application, the appellant confined his claim to the question of stepping up. From the facts as enumerated hereinabove, it is absolutely clear that though Tilak Raj figured at serial No. 397 while the appellant figured at serial No. 338 of the seniority list of Junior Engineers. Nonetheless, it is apparent from the record that Tilak Raj Chaunta was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) on 26.8.1978 on officiating basis while the appellant came to be promoted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) only on 7.12.2000. The pay of Tilak Raj Chaunta was fixed at Rs.13,125/- while the pay of the appellant was fixed at Rs.10,025/-. 10. From the records, it is also clear that the case of the appellant was considered for promotion for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Departmental Promotion Committees held in the years 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 and the appellant was not found suitable for being promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). Even in the Review Departmental Promotion Committee held on 1.8.1996, the appellant was again not found suitable. Similarly, in the Departmental Promotion Committees held in the years 1998 and 2000, the case of the appellant was not recommended. It was only on 14.11.2000 that the appellant was recommended for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), pursuant to which the appellant was promoted as such on 7.12.2000. 11. In this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge held that the appellant could not be held to be senior to Tilak Raj Chaunta because learned Single Judge found that Tilak Raj had worked as Assistant Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 26.8.1978 while the appellant on the other came to be promoted only on 7.12.2000 which was after about 22 years of promotion of Tilak Raj Chaunta. 12. 12. It would be seen that FR 22-C as it originally stood (now FR 22 (I) (a) (1) did not provide for stepping up and it was only through the O.M. issued on 4.2.1966 that this benefit was granted by the Government. Prior to 4.2.1966 such stepping up of pay was not allowed under FR 22-C inspite of existence of such anomalies of pay. Further, the stepping up of pay even under this O.M. is to be granted only in cases fulfilling the conditions stipulated in the O.M. and not in all cases of pay anomaly between a senior and junior, working in the same cadre. The O.M. No. F.2(78)-E.III (A)/66, dated 4.2.1966 is as under: “(18) Removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay of Senior on promotion drawing less pay than his junior.- (a) As a result of application of FR 22-C [Now FR 22 (I) (a) (1)].- In order to remove the anomaly of a Government servant promoted or appointed to a higher post on or after 1-4-1961 drawing a lower rate of pay in that post than another Government servant junior to him in the lower grade and promoted or appointed subsequently to another identical post, it has been decided that in such cases the pay of the senior officer in the higher post should be stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for the junior officer in that higher post. The stepping up should be done with effect from the date of promotion or appointment of the junior officer and will be subject to the following conditions, namely:- (a) Both the junior and senior officers should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical and in the same cadre; (b) The scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical: (c) The anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of FR 22-C. For example, if even in the lower post the junior officer draws from time to time a higher rate of pay than the senior by virtue of grant of advance increments, the above provisions will not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior officer. The orders refixing the pay of the senior officers in accordance with the above provisions shall be issued under FR 27. The next increment of the senior officer will be drawn on completion of the requisite qualifying service with effect from the date of refixation of pay.” 13. Thus, it would be clear from the aforesaid provision neither the principle of equality or equity apply and fixation of pay is always referable to the individual employees. The foundation for the claim of stepping up does not lie on the principle of equality of pay between two employees in the cadre. It was a decision taken by the Government in 1966 only to set-right anomaly that arises directly as a result of pay fixation under FR 22-C. Thus, what essentially follows is that merely because a junior gets higher pay that does not mean that invariably a senior to him should also get the same without any foundation for such claim in law. Different treatment does not per se become discriminatory so as to be violative of Article 14. It would only be violative of equal protection if there is no basis for differentiation. Consequently, only those anomalies that are directly referable to that rule, are amenable to the curative process thereunder, namely stepping up and no other. Thus, it is clear from the above that any higher pay drawn by a junior due to fortuitous circumstances would not entitle the senior to lay a claim for stepping up of his pay, unless the conditions as laid down by the O.M. dated 4.2.1966 are satisfied. 14. Thus, it is clear from the above that any higher pay drawn by a junior due to fortuitous circumstances would not entitle the senior to lay a claim for stepping up of his pay, unless the conditions as laid down by the O.M. dated 4.2.1966 are satisfied. 14. It would be necessary in this background to refer to the Government of India notification dated 4.11.1993 which deals in detail the instances which did not constitute an anomaly for stepping up of the pay with reference to junior, the same reads as under:- “(23) Instances which do not constitute an anomaly for stepping up of pay with reference to juniors.- Cases for stepping up of the pay of seniors in a pay scale to that of juniors are generally considered if the following conditions are satisfied:- (a) both the junior and senior officer should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical in the same cadre ; (b) the scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which the junior and senior officer are entitled to draw pay should be identical; (c) the anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of FR 22-C. For example, if even in the lower post the junior officer draws from time to time a higher rate of pay than the senior by virtue of grant of advance increments or on any other account, the above provisions will not be invoked to step up the pay of senior officer. 2. Instances have come to the notice of this Department requesting for stepping up of pay due to the following reasons:- "(a) where a senior proceeds on Extra Ordinary Leave which results in postponement of Date of Next Increment in the lower post, consequently he starts drawing less pay than his junior in the lower grade itself. He, therefore, cannot claim pay parity on promotion even though he may be promoted earlier to the higher grade; (b) if a senior foregoes/refuses promotion leading to his junior being promoted/appointed to the higher post earlier, junior draws higher pay than the senior. The senior may be on deputation while junior avails of the ad hoc promotion in the cadre. He, therefore, cannot claim pay parity on promotion even though he may be promoted earlier to the higher grade; (b) if a senior foregoes/refuses promotion leading to his junior being promoted/appointed to the higher post earlier, junior draws higher pay than the senior. The senior may be on deputation while junior avails of the ad hoc promotion in the cadre. The increased pay drawn by a junior either due to ad hoc officiating/regular service rendered in the higher posts for period earlier than the senior, cannot, therefore, be an anomaly in strict sense of the term; (c) If a senior joins the higher post later than the junior for whatsoever reasons, whereby he draws less pay than the junior, in such cases senior cannot claim stepping up of pay at par with the junior." (d) if a senior is appointed later than the junior in the lower post itself whereby he is in receipt of lesser pay than the junior, in such cases also the senior cannot claim pay parity in the higher post though he may have been promoted earlier to the higher post; (e) where a person is promoted from lower to a higher post, his pay is fixed with reference to the pay drawn by him in the lower post under FR 22-C and he is likely to get more pay than a direct appointee whose pay is fixed under different set of rules. For example, an UDC on promotion to the post of Assistant gets his pay fixed under FR 22-C with reference to the pay drawn in the post of UDC, whereas the pay of Assistant 9DR) is fixed normally at the minimum under FR 22-B (2). In such cases, the senior direct recruit cannot claim pay parity with the junior promoted from a lower post to higher post as seniority alone is not a criteria for allowing stepping up; (f) where a junior gets more pay due to additional increments earned on acquiring higher qualifications. 3. In the instances referred to in para 2 above, a junior drawing more pay than the senior will not constitute an anomaly. In such cases, stepping up of pay will not, therefore, be admissible.”. 15. 3. In the instances referred to in para 2 above, a junior drawing more pay than the senior will not constitute an anomaly. In such cases, stepping up of pay will not, therefore, be admissible.”. 15. It is not in dispute that the appellant no doubt was senior to Tilak Raj Chaunta in the cadre of Junior Engineer but he i.e. Tilak Raj Chaunta had been officiating as Assistant Engineer right from the year 1978 and had worked for nearly 22 years as such by the time appellant came to be finally promoted in the year 2000. That being the position, then in terms of the “instances which did not constitute anomaly for stepping up of pay” at para 2 (b) supra, senior’s pay cannot be stepped up. 16. That apart, the learned Single Judge has rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and another Vs. R. Swaminathan and others (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 690 wherein it has been categorically held that the junior can be granted higher pay than their seniors, if the junior officiate in promotional posts. It has further been held by their Lordships that the increased pay drawn by a junior because of ad hoc officiating or regular service rendered by him in the higher post for periods earlier than the senior is not an anomaly because pay does not depend on seniority alone nor is seniority alone a criterion for stepping up of pay. Even here, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made a detailed reference to the Office Memorandum dated 4.11.1993 to hold as under: “The Office Memorandum dated 4-11-1993, Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, has set out the various instances where stepping of pay cannot be done. It gives, inter alia, the following instances which have come to the notice of the department with a request for stepping up of pay. These are : "(a) Where a senior proceeds on Extra Ordinary Leave which results in postponement of Date of Next Increment in the lower post, consequently he starts drawing less pay than his junior in the lower grade itself. These are : "(a) Where a senior proceeds on Extra Ordinary Leave which results in postponement of Date of Next Increment in the lower post, consequently he starts drawing less pay than his junior in the lower grade itself. He, therefore, cannot claim pay parity on promotion even though he may be promoted earlier to the higher grade; (b) if a senior foregoes/refuses promotion leading to his junior being promoted/appointed to the higher post earlier, junior draws higher pay than the senior. The senior may be on deputation while junior avails of the ad hoc promotion in the cadre. The increased pay drawn by a junior either due to ad hoc officiating/regular service rendered in the higher posts for period earlier than the senior, cannot, therefore, be anomaly in strict sense of the term. (c) If a senior joins the higher post later than the junior for whatsoever reasons, whereby he draws less pay than the junior, in such cases senior cannot claim stepping up of pay on a par with the junior." (d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . There are also other instances cited in the Memorandum. The Memorandum makes it clear that in such instances a junior drawing more pay than his senior will not constitute an anomaly and, therefore, stepping up of pay will not be admissible. The increased pay drawn by a junior because of ad hoc officiating or regular service rendered by him in the higher post for periods earlier than the senior is not an anomaly because pay does not depend on seniority alone nor is seniority alone a criterion for stepping up of pay. 13. The employees in question are, therefore, not entitled to have their pay stepped up under the said Government Order because the difference in the pay drawn by them and the higher pay drawn by their juniors is not as a result of any anomaly; nor is it a result of the application of Fundamental Rule 22(I)(a)(1).” 17. The learned Single Judge has further rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of Union of India and others Vs. M. Suryanarayana Rao (1998) 6 Supreme Court Cases 400, wherein it has been categorically held that the benefit of stepping up is not admissible to the senior even if junior’s ad hoc officiation is for a long period. The learned Single Judge has further rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of Union of India and others Vs. M. Suryanarayana Rao (1998) 6 Supreme Court Cases 400, wherein it has been categorically held that the benefit of stepping up is not admissible to the senior even if junior’s ad hoc officiation is for a long period. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court can be culled out as under: “4. The judgment of the Tribunal is assailed by the appellant on the ground that the principle of stepping up will not apply in the case where a junior had been promoted earlier to a higher post on ad hoc basis and on account of such ad hoc promotion, the junior got his pay fixed at a higher scale. In support of this contention, reliance is placed by the appellant on a judgment of this Court in Union of India v. R. Swaminathan (1997) 7 SCC 690 . A Bench of three Judges considered FR 22 (i) and also the government office memorandum dated 4.11.1993 which sets out various instances where stepping up of pay cannot be done. The Bench pointed out that in that case, the higher pay was fixed for the juniors not because of any promotion under FR 22 but because of earlier ad hoc promotions given to the juniors for certain periods. The following observation of the Bench will be relevant: (SCC pp. 69798, paras 11 & 12) “The Memorandum makes it clear that in such instances a junior drawing more pay than his senior will not constitute an anomaly and, therefore, stepping up of pay will not be admissible. The increased pay drawn by a junior because of ad hoc officiating or regular service rendered by him in the higher post for periods earlier than the senior is not an anomaly because pay does not depend on seniority alone nor is seniority alone a criterion for stepping up of pay. The aggrieved employees have contended with some justification that local officiating promotions within a Circle have resulted in their being deprived of a chance to officiate in the higher post, if such chance of officiating arises in a different Circle. They have submitted that since there is all-India seniority for regular promotions, this all-India seniority must prevail even while making local officiating appointments within any Circle. They have submitted that since there is all-India seniority for regular promotions, this all-India seniority must prevail even while making local officiating appointments within any Circle. The question is basically of administrative exigency and the difficulty that the administration may face if even short-term vacancies have to be filled on the basis of all-India seniority by calling a person who may be stationed in a different Circle in a region remote from the region where the vacancy arises, and that too for a short duration. This is essentially a matter of administrative policy. But the only justification for local promotions is their short duration. If such vacancy is of a long duration there is no administrative reason for not following the all-India seniority. Most of the grievances of the employees will be met if proper norms are laid down for making local officiating promotions. One thing, however, is clear. Neither the seniority nor the regular promotion of these employees is affected by such officiating local arrangements. The employees who have not officiated in the higher post earlier, however, will not get the benefit of the proviso to Fundamental Rule 22.” 5. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the aforesaid decision does not apply in the present case as the Bench had considered only a short-term ad hoc promotion of the junior and not a long-term ad hoc promotion. It is pointed out that in the facts of this case, P. Panjiara had been promoted on ad hoc basis for a long term. The said fact is admitted in the counter-statement filed by the Government before the Tribunal. It was contended that whenever a long-term ad hoc promotion had been given to a junior and by virtue thereof his pay was fixed on a higher level, his senior must get his pay stepped up and the principle laid down by the Bench in the aforesaid case would apply only to cases of promotion for a short term. From the passage extracted above from the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that the question of stepping up did not depend upon the fact that the promotion was short-term ad hoc promotion or long-term ad hoc promotion. The government memorandum which has been referred to in the judgment does not make a distinction between short term ad hoc promotion and long-term ad hoc promotion. The government memorandum which has been referred to in the judgment does not make a distinction between short term ad hoc promotion and long-term ad hoc promotion. The relevant part of the government memorandum which is extracted in the judgment itself reads as follows: “If a senior foregoes/refuses promotion leading to his junior being promoted/appointed to the higher post earlier, the junior draws higher pay than the senior. The senior may be on deputation while the junior avails of the ad hoc promotion in the cadre. The increased pay drawn by a junior either due to ad hoc officiating/regular service rendered in the higher posts for periods earlier than the senior, cannot, therefore, be an anomaly in the strict sense of the term.” 18. What would thus appear from the narration of the facts and law cited above that the present case is not a case of stepping up simplicitor, but is a case where the so called junior had been officiating on the higher post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) for nearing about 22 years while the appellant on the other hand had been working in the lower post of Junior Engineer. 19. There can be no quarrel with ratio of the judgments referred to by Mrs. Pratima Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant in the cases of CWP(T) No. 15470 of 2008, decided on 23.5.2012 titled V.K.Gupta vs. State of H.P. and another and CWP(T) No. 13348 of 2008 decided on 30.12.2010 titled J.K.Mohindru vs. State of H.P. and another, but none of these cases referred to the fact situation as obtaining in the present case. 20. Accordingly, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.