The principle that a senior employee cannot receive less pay than a junior is upheld, prompting the court to direct equal pay adjustments based on established seniority and promotion timelines.

JUDGMENT :
JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ, J.

1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

“(i). That writ in the nature of certiorari may very kindly be issued by quashing and setting aside impugned rejection order dated 16.03.2012, Annexure P-8, being illegal and arbitrary.

(ii). That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued, directing the respondents to step up the pay of the petitioner so as to make it equal to the figure of his juniors right from the date, i.e., 01.01.1996, the juniors of the petitioner S/Shri Rupa Ram and Bardas Kashyap have drawn more pay than the petitioner.

(iii). That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued, directing the respondents to pay all the arrears accrued to the petitioner with interest @ 12% per annum thereon, from the date of becoming due till its realization.”

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Forest Ranger with the respondent-Department on 30.12.1961 in the pay-scale of Rs.100-10-200/10-300 and, thereafter promoted to the cadre of Himachal Pradesh Forest Service Officers, (hereinafter referred as HPFS) w.e.f. 23.01.1982 and retired on 31.03.1999 on attaining the age of superannuation.

3. The petitioner was assigned the seniority position on the post of Forest Ranger at Serial No.90 below one Prakash Chand and above Shri Raghubir Chand whereas, S/Sh. Rupa Ram and Bardas Kashyap figured at Serial No.206 and 224, respectively, as per the seniority list, circulated vide order dated 30.04.1974 by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. S/Sh. Rupa Ram and Bardas Kashyap remained junior to the petitioner even in the aforesaid list maintained in respect of H.P.F.S. Officers service cadre, where the petitioner had been assigned place at Serial No.49, much above S/Sh. Rupa Ram and Bardas Kashyap, while making ad-hoc promotion of S/Sh. Rupa Ram and Bardas Kashyap, which being a stop gap arrangement, the seniority criteria alone should have been taken into consideration. As per instructions of the State Government, ad-hoc appointments/promotions should not have been allowed to continue beyond the period of six months. However, both the aforesaid persons were allowed to continue for an indefinite period and were granted the pay- scale of Rs.12000-375-13500-400-15900-450-16350.

4. The petitioner vide Notification dated 18.05.2001, on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DPC’), had been given the pay-scale of Rs.12000-16350 w.e.f. 23.01.1998 with next date of increment as on 01.01.1999, raising his pay to Rs.12,375/- per month. The petitioner was already drawing Rs.12,000/- per month and thus there was no financial gain to him. However, S/Sh. Rupa Ram and Bardas Kashyap had been given the higher pay scale of Rs.12000-375-13500-400-15900-450-16350 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and consequently fixed at Rs.12,000/- with next date of increment as on 01.01.1997, raising their pay to Rs.12,375/- per month and on 01.01.1998 to Rs.12,750/- per month (Sh. Rupa Ram retired on 31.01.1998) and on 01.01.1999 to Rs.13,125/- per month qua Sh. Bardas Kashyap, meaning thereby the pay anomaly arose to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1996, when the pay of S/Sh. Rupa Ram and Bardas Kashyap in the cadre of HPFS, junior to the petitioner, was raised to Rs.12,000/- per month from Rs.10,980/- per month in the existing pay scale of Rs.10025-15100, whereas, the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.10025-15100 was already drawing more p