JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing communications/ orders dated 18.02.2020” (Annexure P-7), 08.03.2021 (Annexure P-10) and 27.12.2021 (Annexure P-15) issued by respondent No.2. ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to pay the difference of the salary being drawn by Shri Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2016 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date the same fell due till its realization. iii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Senior Lecturer (mechanical Engineering) w.e.f. 26.03.2015, when Shri Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj was promoted.” 2. The facts of the case are not disputed. Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (Mechanical Engineering) in the Department of Technical Education and he had joined at Government Polytechnic, Sundernagar on 9.2.2000. One Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj was also appointed in the same cadre and had joined on 10.2.2000 at Government Polytechnic, Hamirpur. Petitioner was rightly placed above said Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj in the seniority list of the Lecturer (Mechanical Engineering). Petitioner was promoted as Head of Department (Mechanical Engineering) on 26.3.2015 in the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100 + Grade Pay of Rs. 7800/-. On the same day i.e. 26.3.2015, Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj was also promoted as Senior Lecturer (Mechanical Engineering) in the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100 + Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/-. Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj was further promoted as Head of Department (Mechanical Engineering) in the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100 + Grade Pay of Rs. 7800/- on 3.2.2016. Having been promoted from the post of Senior Lecturer (Mechanical Engineering), the salary of said Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj came to be fixed at rate higher than the salary of petitioner w.e.f. 1.4.2016. 3. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner was that his junior was getting higher salary than him and the petitioner represented to the respondents. His representation was rejected firstly on 18.2.2020 vide Annexure P-7. Petitioner again represented but his representation met with the same fate vide rejection order Annexure P-10 dated 8.3.2021. 3. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner was that his junior was getting higher salary than him and the petitioner represented to the respondents. His representation was rejected firstly on 18.2.2020 vide Annexure P-7. Petitioner again represented but his representation met with the same fate vide rejection order Annexure P-10 dated 8.3.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner made yet another representation by quoting the Office Memo dated 26.10.2018, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions Department but he again remained unsuccessful and rejection letter was issued on 4.2.2022 vide Annexure P-15. 4. Having remained unsuccessful in his attempts to get his grievance redressed from respondents, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition. The case of petitioner is that an anomaly has been created by grant of higher pay to a junior, whereas the senior on the same post in the same cadre is being paid less salary. Petitioner has claimed his right on the basis of FR-22 I (a) (1) and Office Memoranda regarding removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay of senior on promotion drawing less pay than his junior issued by Government of India from time to time. 5. Respondents have contested the plea of petitioner on the ground that he was not entitled to the benefit of FR 22 1 (a) (1) and Office memorandum, issued in respect of removal of anomaly by stepping up the pay of senior on promotion drawing less pay than his junior. As per respondents, petitioner was directly promoted as Head of Department from lower post of Lecturer, whereas Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj was promoted in the first step as Senior Lecturer and in the second step as Head of Department. In such situation, Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj got the benefit of FR 22 twice and as such, his pay was fixed at higher scale than the petitioner. According to the respondents, there is no anomaly and hence, the petitioner was not entitled for stepping up of his pay as prayed for by him. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records carefully. 7. The Government of India has issued orders from time to time for removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records carefully. 7. The Government of India has issued orders from time to time for removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay. One such order dated 4.2.1966 reads as under:- “22 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 141961 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 the 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 FR22C. 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 I accordance with the above provisions shall be issued under FR27. 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”. 8. 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”. 8. The clear import of above mentioned order is to remove the anomaly, arising from a situation where government servant promoted to a higher post draws lower rate of pay than another government servant junior to him in the lower grade and promoted subsequently to another identical post and thereafter to step up his rate of pay to a figure equal to pay as fixed for the junior officer in that higher post from the date from which date the junior officer was promoted. The above rule, however, is subject to the following condition (i) both the junior and senior officers should belong to the same cadre, (ii) the post on which they have been promoted should be identical and in the same cadre, (iii) the scale of pay of the lower and higher post in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical and (vi) the anomaly should directly be as a result of the application of FR 22 (c). 9. Reverting to the facts of the case, the petitioner and Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj belonged to the same cadre and posts. Both of them were initially appointed as Lecturer (Mechanical Engineering) were entitled to the same scale of pay as Lecturers and became entitled to the same scale of pay as Head of Departments (Mechanical Engineering). At this stage, it is relevant to notice that as per Recruitment & Promotion Rules, prevalent in Department of Technical Education, a Lecturer after five years of service is eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer. For the post of Head of Department, the eligibility is that the incumbent should have served as Senior Lecturer for three years’ and in absence of such eligible person, a lecturer having served for eight years on such post would be considered. 10. Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in 2000. He became eligible for the post of Senior Lecturer in 2005. It is the case of petitioner that despite availability of vacancies in the post of Senior Lecturer, the respondents did not convene the DPC in time and as a result of which, petitioner could not be considered for such promotional post till 2015 i.e. even after serving as lecturer for fifteen years. It is the case of petitioner that despite availability of vacancies in the post of Senior Lecturer, the respondents did not convene the DPC in time and as a result of which, petitioner could not be considered for such promotional post till 2015 i.e. even after serving as lecturer for fifteen years. It is in such circumstances, that the petitioner was promoted directly as Head of Department (Mechanical Engineering) on 26.3.2015, as at that time, only two Senior Lecturers were eligible to be promoted to the post of Head of Department (Mechanical Engineering). There were four vacancies to the post of Head of Departments (Mechanical Engineering) and as such, by virtue of his seniority, petitioner got a chance to be promoted directly as Head of Department. On the other hand, Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj was promoted as Senior Lecturer on the same day i.e. 26.3.2015 and he started getting the pay scale of Senior Lecturer. 11. The above, in my considered view, is clearly an anomalous situation. It was not the fault of petitioner that he was not promoted as Senior Lecturer despite of being eligible and also despite of being availability of vacancies. The above said order issued by Government of India clearly applies to the fact situation in hand. Recently, in Union of India & others vs. C.R. Madhava Murthy & another, 2002 (6) SCC 183, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with a fact situation where the juniors were being paid higher pay scale than senior on the same post by virtue of having been benefited by upgradation under ACP Scheme. A submission was made that since the seniors were already promoted, therefore, there was no question of granting any stepping up of pay to them under the ACP Scheme. Negating such contention, it has been held as under:- “9. Having heard Ms. Madhvi Divan, learned ASG and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, which has emerged from the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it cannot be said that the original writ petitioners were as such claiming the stepping up of the pay under the ACP Scheme. Their grievance was with respect to the anomaly in the pay scale and their grievance was that while granting upgradation under the ACP Scheme, their juniors were getting higher salaries than what they receive. Their grievance was with respect to the anomaly in the pay scale and their grievance was that while granting upgradation under the ACP Scheme, their juniors were getting higher salaries than what they receive. Therefore, it was a case of removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay of seniors on promotion drawing a less pay than their juniors. 11. Therefore, it was a case where a junior was drawing more pay on account of upgradation under the ACP Scheme and there was an anomaly and therefore, the pay of senior was required to be stepped up. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has rightly directed the appellants herein to step up the pay of the original writ petitioners keeping in view of pay scale which has been granted to the juniors from the date they have started drawing lesser pay than their juniors. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. No interference of this Court is called for”. 12. In Gurcharan Singh Grewal vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & others, 2009 (3) SCC 94, the Hon’ble Supreme Court taking note of settled principle of law that a senior cannot be paid lesser salary than his junior has held as under:- “15. Mr. Chhabra also attempted to justify the disparity in the pay of Shri Shori and the appellant No.1 by urging that the appellant No. 1 had been granted the promotional scale with effect from 1st January, 1996, where the benefits of increment in the scale were lower. On the other hand, Shri Shori who joined the services of the Board in 1974, was granted the promotional scale on 17th May, 2006, with effect from 1st September, 2001, when the increments and the pay-scales were higher. Mr. Chhabra submitted that it is the disparity in the incremental benefits that led to the anomaly of the appellant No.1 getting a lower salary in the promotional scale. 16. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we have little hesitation in accepting Mr. Mr. Chhabra submitted that it is the disparity in the incremental benefits that led to the anomaly of the appellant No.1 getting a lower salary in the promotional scale. 16. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we have little hesitation in accepting Mr. Gupta's submissions that since the writ petition had been jointly filed on behalf of the appellants, whose interest was common, the prayer therein should not have been confined to the appellant No.2 alone and that the High Court should have granted relief to the appellant No.1 also by directing that his pay also be stepped up to that of his junior, Shri R.P. Shori. Although, this question does not appear to have been gone into by the High Court for the simple reason that the writ petition was disposed of only on the averments contained in paragraph 7 of the written statement filed on behalf of respondents that the grievance of the appellant No.2 duly addressed, there ought to have been at least some discussion in the judgment of the High Court regarding the claim of the appellant No.1. Unfortunately, the case of the appellant No.1 was not considered at all by the High Court. 17. 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 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. 18. We are unable to accept the reasoning of the High Court in this regard or the submissions made in support thereof by Mr. Chhabra, since the very object to be achieved is to bring the pay scale of the appellant No.1 at par with that of his junior. 18. We are unable to accept the reasoning of the High Court in this regard or the submissions made in support thereof by Mr. Chhabra, since the very object to be achieved is to bring the pay scale of the appellant No.1 at par with that of his junior. We are clearly of the opinion that the reasoning of the High Court was erroneous and the appellant No.1 was also entitled to the same benefits of pay parity with Shri Shori as has been granted to the appellant No.2.” 13. Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently submitted that it was not a case of anomaly, rather Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj was already drawing higher scale in the grade of Senior Lecturer, therefore, petitioner could not draw parity with him. He has placed reliance on Union of India & another vs. R. Swaminathan & others, 1997 (7) SCC 690 . After considering the submissions and the judgment sited by learned Additional Advocate General, I have no hesitation to say that the case of petitioner will not be covered by said judgment, as in that case, Hon’ble Three Judges were dealing with a fact situation where the juniors had already officiated on promotional post for more than twelve months and, therefore, were getting higher pay of the promotional post by virtue of proviso of FR 22 (i) and FR 26 (a). It was in such situation that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that the seniors were not entitled for stepping up as the juniors in their own right were getting the higher pay scale by virtue of aforesaid rules. 14. In the instant case, the fact situation is different. Petitioner and Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj were holding the same lower cadre as Lecturer. They both had become eligible for being promoted to next higher post of Senior Lecturer, but were denied the opportunity by not holding the DPC in time. Simply because Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj got opportunity to be promoted as Senior Lecturer for about three months, cannot be used to the detriment of petitioner, as he was also eligible for being promoted as Senior Lecturer and could have been done in the first instance. Simply because Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj got opportunity to be promoted as Senior Lecturer for about three months, cannot be used to the detriment of petitioner, as he was also eligible for being promoted as Senior Lecturer and could have been done in the first instance. As a matter of fact, subsequent to rejection of his initial representation, petitioner made another representation praying for grant of initial promotion as Senior Lecturer and subsequent promotion as Head of Department but even such prayer made by him was rejected on the ground that it cannot be considered belatedly. Clause (b) of above noticed Office Memorandum dated 4.2.1966, issued by the Government of India speaks about the requirement of scales of pay on lower and higher posts to be identical in case of both junior and senior incumbents. Had the petitioner been promoted as Senior Lecturer in first instance, he would have been entitled to for the same scale which Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj started getting after being promoted to the post of Senior Lecturer. Viewed from another angle, at the time of promoting petitioner directly from Lecturer to the post of Head of Department, no option was sought from the petitioner. 15. In view of above discussion, the petition is allowed. Orders dated 18.02.2020 (Annexure P-7), 08.03.2021 (Annexure P-10) and 27.12.2021 (Annexure P-15) are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the petitioner pay at the same rate, which was fixed in the case of Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj w.e.f. 1.4.2016. The needful be done within two months from the date of passing of this judgment and the consequent arrears, if any, be disbursed to the petitioner within the aforesaid period, failing which, the respondents shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of arrears w.e.f. 1.4.2016, till actual date of payment. 16. The petition is accordingly disposed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.