Pay anomaly where senior draws less than junior due to advanced increments for Ph.D. at different pay scales must be rectified by stepping up senior's pay from date anomaly arose, per Supreme Court precedent.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:-

“i. That Annexure P-6 may be set aside/quashed and the respondents may be ordered to equate the petitioner in the matter of pay with Sh. Gopal Krishan, respondent No.3 and her pay may be fixed accordingly with all consequential benefits from the due date.”

2. The case of the petitioner is that there is a pay anomaly in the pay of the petitioner as compared to Sh. Gopal Krishan, who is her junior and the representation filed by the petitioner for the removal of the said pay anomaly, has been arbitrarily rejected by the respondents, in terms of Annexure P-6. According to the petitioner, the pay anomaly, in the pay of the petitioner as compared to her junior, which is not on account of any omission on the part of the petitioner, has to be removed by the respondents and the pay of the petitioner has to be brought at par with that of the junior from the date when the anomaly took place.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Lecturer (Sociology) in the year 1995. At the time of filing of the writ petition, she was serving as a Principal in Government Degree College Darlaghat. Learned counsel further submitted that in terms of Annexure P-2, the pay of the petitioner was Rs.1,88,200/-, whereas that of Shri Gopal Krishan was Rs.2,05,600/- per month, who is much junior to the petitioner in the cadre, which is evident from the tentative list appended with the petition as Annexure P-4. Learned counsel referred to Annexure P-3, which demonstrates that the pay of Shri Gopal Krishan is more than the pay of the petitioner and also Annexure P-4, which is the tentative seniority list of Associate Professors circulated on 14.12.2002, in terms whereof, the name of the petitioner is at Sr. No. 64, whereas, that of Shri Gopal Krishan is at Sr. No. 72. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed that the petition be allowed by quashing Annexure P-6 and issuing a direction to the respondent to remove the pay anomaly of the petitioner vis-a-vis her junior.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner, referred to the reply filed by the State and submitted that there is no cause so as to entail the maintainability of this writ petition in favour of the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner was awarded three non-compounded advanced increments for acquiring the Ph.D Degree on 29.07.2006, whereas Dr. Gopal Krishan, was awarded three non-compounded advanced increments on 28.09.2010, when he was in the higher pay scale. Therefore, in light of the fact that when the petitioner was granted three advanced increments, she was drawing a lower pay scale as compared to Shri Gopal Krishan, the difference in pay cannot be termed as a pay anomaly. He accordingly submitted that the petition deserves dismissal, more so, in light of the provisions of HPCS (RP) Rules, 2022.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the pleadings and the documents on record.

6. It is not in dispute that there is indeed a situation here, where the petitioner is drawing a lesser pay scale than her junior. This is an admitted fact. However, the contention of the State is that because Shri Gopal Krishan is drawing higher salary on account of three increments which were awarded to him on completion of Ph.D when he was drawing a higher pay scale as compared to the petitioner as on the date when she was conferred three increments upon completion of Ph.D, the difference in pay being on