SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 1395

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RANJAN SHARMA, J.
Dr. Yogeshwar Singh Thakur - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others – Respondents
CWPOA No. 6629 of 2019
Decided On : 27-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parav Sharma, and Ms. Vishali, Adv.
For the Respondents:Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocate General.

Senior not entitled to pay stepping up against juniors' higher pay from prior ad hoc promotions and increments where senior ineligible for ad hoc service; anomaly must stem directly from pay fixation rules.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Pay fixation - Stepping up of pay - Senior promoted on regular basis to higher post simultaneously with juniors but drawing less pay due to juniors' prior ad hoc promotion, increments earned during ad hoc service, and subsequent regularization - Senior ineligible for ad hoc promotion lacking requisite qualification - No anomaly directly resulting from application of pay revision rules - Conditions under Note 6 below Rule 7 and Rule 11-A of Revised Pay Rules not fulfilled - FR 22(I)(a)(1) permits increments on ad hoc service - Higher pay to juniors due to earlier eligibility and ad hoc service not conferring right to stepping up on senior. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 11)

(B) Delay and laches - Claim arising in 2009 pursued after 7 years - Representations do not revive stale claim or extend limitation - Negligence disentitles relief. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner, senior in service, appointed as Veterinary Officer on regular basis on same date as juniors but claimed pay anomaly as juniors drew higher pay due to earlier ad hoc appointments, increments during ad hoc period, despite lacking prior ad hoc service due to delayed acquisition of requisite degree.

Findings of Court:
Petition dismissed; no stepping up of pay directed; claim barred by delay.

Issues: Whether higher pay drawn by juniors by virtue of ad hoc promotion followed by regular appointment confers right on senior for stepping up of pay; impact of delay and laches.

Ratio Decidendi: Stepping up applicable only if anomaly directly from pay rules application and preconditions met; prior ad hoc service of eligible juniors earning increments, absent in ineligible senior, does not create rectifiable anomaly; supported by precedents on non-applicability in ad hoc promotion scenarios.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. juniors' earlier degrees enabled adhoc promotions, increments. (Para 5 , 6)

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Petitioner, Yogeshwar Singh Thakur, a retired Veterinary Officer filed Original Application No. 335 of 2016 before Learned State Administrative Tribunal and upon abolition of Tribunal and transfer of the matter to this Court, as CWPOA No. 7729 of 2019, seeking the following relief(s):-

(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to give step up in the pay of applicant to bring him at par to that juniors, respondent No. 3 and 4 w.e.f. due date that is the date from which the anomaly has arisen and the arrears accrued may kindly be ordered to be paid with the interest.

FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Case set up by Learned Counsel is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Veterinary Stockiest in department of Animal Husbandry on 24.04.1982 and was appointed promoted as Veterinary Officer on regular basis in pay scale of Rs.7880-13500 [pre-revised] on 11.09.2009 [Annexure A-1].
Grievance of the petitioner is that the Respondents No. 3 and 4, who were appointed as Veterinary Officer on regular basis alongwith the petitioner on 11.09.2009 [Annexure A-1] were given higher pay ignoring the fact that petitioner was senior leading to anomaly in pay of the petitioner-senior vis-à-vis the higher pay given to the Respondents No. 3 and 4-junior, resulting in financial loss. Petitioner is stated to have made representations on 12.07.2012 and 20.10.2015 [Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-3] but in vain. Case of the petitioner is that the anomaly in pay needs to be redressed in terms of communication issued by Finance Department on 5.10.2010 [Annexure A-4]. In this background, the instant petition was filed with the prayer for removing the anomaly and by stepping up the pay of petitioner [senior] vis-à-vis the pay of respondents No. 3 and 4 [juniors] from the date of issuance of the notification on 11.09.2009 [Annexure A-1] with all consequential benefits.

STAND OF RESPONDENT IN REPLY-AFFIDAVIT:
3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 24.02.2016, Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed the Reply-Affidavit dated 05.07.2016 of Director, Animal Husbandry, Himachal Pradesh.
3(i). Perusal of the Reply-Affidavit indicates that the respondents-State have taken the objection with respect to delay and laches including limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act alleging that the petition was filed after about 7 years. In Para 3 to 8 of the Reply-Affidavit the Respondents have taken a stand that the post of Veterinary Officer is to be filled from incumbents who passed the degree of BVSc & AH [Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry] and the petitioner was sponsored as a departmental candidate for undergoing BVSc & AH Degree on 03.09.1998 and he could not complete the aforesaid degree within prescribed duration of five years prescribed and he completed the said degree on 22.07.2007. It was further averred that on the other hand, the Respondents 3 and 4 were sponsored for undergoing BVSc & AH Degree in the year 2000 & 1999 and they passed their degree on 22.09.2005 and 04.08.2006 i.e. prior to the passing of the degree by the petitioner.
3(ii). Reply-Affidavit further indicates that after passing BVSc & AH Degree on 22.09.2005 and 04.08.2006, the Respondents No. 3 and 4 being eligible for post of Veterinary Officer were promoted/ appointed as Veterinary Officer on adhoc basis on 18.08.2006 and 13.11.2006. Pursuant to their adhoc promotion the Respondents No. 3 and 4 had earned increments of higher post of Veterinary Officer during their adhoc service and such adhoc promotion of Respondents No. 3 and 4 continued till their regular appointment-promotion on same post on 11.09.2009 [Annexure A-1]. Reply states that the petitioner completed BVSc & AH Degree on 22.07.2007 and after possessing this degree the petitioner became eligible for promotion/appointment as Veterinary Officer but the petitioner could not be promoted as Vet


















































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top