A senior employee cannot be paid a lower salary than their junior; any such anomaly must be rectified by stepping up the senior's pay to match the junior's, regardless of whether the junior's higher pay resulted from personal benefits under an ACP Scheme.

For the petitioner(s): Mr.Nitin Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No.4304 of 2021.

Mr.Daleep Singh Kaith and Ms.Saroj, Advocates for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 271, 4200 & 6348 of 2023.

For the respondents: Mr. tSidharth Jalta, Deputy Adrvocate General for the respondents-State in all the petitions.

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

Since common question of law and facts are involved in all these pe titions, therefore, the same have been taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by way of a common judgment.

All these petitions have been filed with the main relief for removing anomaly and stepping up the pay scale of the petitioners, since their juniors are drawing more pay than them.

For adjudicating the claim in the writ petitions, the facts of writ petition bearing CWP No.4304 of 2021 are being taken up. The substantive prayers made in this writ petition are reproduced hereunder:-

i) A writ of mandamus directing respondents to remove the anomaly up stepping up the pay scale of the Petitioners alongwithupto date interest of 9% till the date of realization; and/or

ii) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Para 4(g) .& (h) of Annexure P-3 and declaring the same as Hillegal and irrational; and/or

iii) A writ of mandamus directing respondents not to apply Para 4(g) & (h) of Annexure P-3 to the Petfitioners; and /or

iv) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Annexure P-8 i.e. rejection order dated 03.07.2021 passed by the respondents; and/or

v) Further issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent authorities to pay uarrears to the Petitioners from the date it became due till the date of realization alongwith upto date interest of 9o%; and/or.

The main grouse of the petitioners in the writ petitions is that they have been appointed as Constables in the respondent- Department before July, 2008, except petitioner No.108, who was appointed on 30 September, 2008. The persons who were appointed after the petitioners and junior to them are drawing more salary than the petitioners. On coming to know about the factum of drawing more salary by their juniors, one of the petitioners made representation to the respondents-State highlighting his grievance. The comparative chart was also annexed showing therein that the persons who were inducted in the year 2010 are getting more pay to the persons recruited on 01.07.2008.

A Perusal of the chart appended clearly revealed that the Constables, who were appointed on 01.07.2008, being paid an amount of Rs.17130/- per month as on 01.10.2020 and the person who was appointed after them on 01.01.2010 was paid an amount of Rs.17650/- per month as on 01.10.2020.

The representation made by onoe of the petitioners was rejected vide order dated 03.07.2021, stating therein that the matter was examined by the Finance Department and the anomaly, which has arisen, is as a result of grant of benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme, (hereinafter referred as ACP Scheme) and the benefits allowed/granted under the ACP Scheme are always personal to an incum bent/employee. It was conveyed that this aspect has already been clarified that no stepping up of pay in the pay band and grade pay would be admissible with regard to junior getting more pay to his senior on account of pay fixation under the scheme vide para 4(g) & (h) of new ACP Scheme notified on 09.08.2012.

The claim of the petitioners in the writ petition is on the anvil of settled law that the junior cannot draw more salary to his senior and the reasons assigned to reject the claim on the plea that progressions granted under the ACP Scheme are personal to the employee is arbitrary and unconstitutional, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh Grewal and another vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others , (2009) 3 SCC 94.

The respondents-State filed reply to the petition and supported the decision, whereby the claim raised by the pe