JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. By way of instant Letter Patent Appeal, appellants-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondents’) have laid challenge to the judgment dated 04.08.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP(T) No. 6744/2008, (for short ‘impugned judgment’), wherein respondents have been directed to fix the pay of Dr. P.S. Arya (Original Applicant), predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents-writ petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the ‘writ petitioners’) at par with Dr.A.S. Saini w.e.f. Ist March, 1986 and to release the arrears to the writ petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of impugned judgment. 2. Perusal of impugned judgment as well as pleadings adduced on record by the parties clearly suggests that Dr.P.S. Arya, predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners, was senior to Dr.A.S. Saini and was getting less pay vis-à-vis Dr.A.S. Saini. 3. Hon’ble Apex Court in Er.Gurcharan Singh Grewal & Anr. vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors, 2009(1) Scale 535 , which has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge, while allowing the petition of the writ petitioners, has held that senior cannot be paid lesser salary than his junior. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case has held as under:- “13. 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 paid lesser salary that 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.” 4. After having gone through the reply to the Original Application filed by the respondents-University, this Court finds that Dr.P.S. Arya, predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners, was senior to Dr.A.S. Saini. Dr.P.S. Arya was promoted to the post of Vegetable Breeder in the cadre of Associate Professors in Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur w.e.f. 1.7.1984 in the pre-revised scale of Rs.1200-1900, whereas Dr.A.S. Saini was appointed to the post of Scientist (Agr.Economics) w.e.f. 19.3.1985. 5. Dr.P.S. Arya was promoted to the post of Vegetable Breeder in the cadre of Associate Professors in Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur w.e.f. 1.7.1984 in the pre-revised scale of Rs.1200-1900, whereas Dr.A.S. Saini was appointed to the post of Scientist (Agr.Economics) w.e.f. 19.3.1985. 5. It also emerge from the record that pay scale of Associate Professor/Vegetable Breeder was revised on pattern of University Grant Commission from Rs.1200-1900 to Rs.3700-5700 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 vide Notification dated 19.12.1988 issued by the respondent-Controller, Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya (Annexure A-2). Perusal of aforesaid Notification (Annexure A-2) suggests that pay fixation formula contained in Government of India’s letter dated 22.7.1988 was required to be applied while fixing revised pay scale, whereby next increment to teacher, whose pay was fixed in the revised scale in accordance with the Rule-II, was to be granted next increment on the date when he would have drawn his increment, had he continued in the existing scale. 6. In the instant case, it emerge from the record that respondents-University implemented the aforesaid pay fixation formula while revising pay scale in respect of Dr.A.S. Saini by allowing him annual increment on due date i.e. 1.3.1986, thereby fixing his pay at Rs.3825/-, whereas Dr.P.S. Arya was discriminated and denied the same increment, which was due on 1.1.1986, as a result of which his pay was fixed at Rs.3700/-. Since Dr.A.S. Saini was junior to Dr.P.S. Arya, he could not draw higher salary than his senior, as has been held in the judgment supra passed by Hon’ble Apex Court. 7. Accordingly, there appears to be no illegality and infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Moreover, we find that the original applicant Dr.P.S. Arya has expired and instant proceedings have been filed by his legal representatives. 8. Consequently, in view of discussion made hereinabove, we see no reason to interfere in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, which is apparently based upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court supra and as such the same is upheld. Therefore, this appeal fails and is dismissed, accordingly. 9. All interim orders are vacated and all the pending miscellaneous applications are disposed of.