##PAGE1##

2026:HHC:18817-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.4203 of 2022

Decided on: 21.05.2026

Dr. Rajender Sharma … Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others … Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹Yes

____________________________________________________ _

For the petitioner: Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Senior Advocate,

with Mr. Dinkar Bhaskar, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate, for

respondent No.1.

Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate

General, for respondents No.2 and 3.

None for remaining respondents.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

CMP No.11547 of 2026

In view of the averments made in the application,

whereby the applicant/petitioner is seeking early hearing of the

petition, the same is allowed and stands disposed of.

CWP No.4203 of 2022

2. With the consent of parties, the case is taken up for

final consideration today itself.

3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia,

prayed for the following reliefs:-

“A) That Order dated October 2017 (Annexure P-8) issued

by the Director of Higher Education, Shimla may be

quashed and set aside.

(B) That the pay of the petitioner may be stepped up and

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2026 14:53:10 :::CIS

2

2026:HHC:18817-DB

his pay may be ordered to be brought at par with

proforma respondent and be fixed at the same am.ount

i.e., Rs. 81,232/- as on date of filing of the Petition along

with the consequential increases.

(C) That the petitioner may further be paHid the arrears of

enhanced pay from the date when pay of the proforma

respondent has been fixed at a higher amount as

compared to the petitioner.

(D) That Clause 9.10 & 9.11 of UGC Regulations 2010

along with Clauses 7(x xi) & 7(xxiii) of Appendix-I of UGC

Regulations 2010 (Annexure P-3) may also be quashed

and set aside.

(E) That Clauses 7(xxi) and 7(xxiii) of Notification dated

15.10.2009 (Annexure P-4) may also be quashed and set

aside.”

4 The grievance of the the petitioner is that there exists

pay anomaly in his pay as compared to the proforma respondent,

who happens to be his junior. The prayer of the petitioner is for

removal of the said pay anomaly and stepping up of his pay to bring

it at par with proforma respondent.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued

that the petitioner, at the time of filing of the petition, was being paid

less salary than the proforma respondent, who was junior to him, as

Associate Professor (Physics). Therefore, the petitioner had

approached this Court for stepping up of his pay. He submitted that

it is settled law that whenever there exists an anomaly in the pay

scale of senior and junior, then the pay of the senior has to be

stepped up to bring it at par with his junior. By referring to

::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2026 14:53:10 :::CIS

3

2026:HHC:18817-DB

Annexure P-8, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the stand of

the Higher Education Department that the pay of the petitioner

cannot be stepped up in light of the opinion of Joint Controller (F&A)

that when a junior employee gets more pay due tHo an additional

increment earned on acquiring a higher qualification, the same will

not constitute an anomaly for his senior tfo claim stepping up with

reference to juniors, is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because in

the present case it is not as if the proforma respondent had acquired

a qualification higher than what was being possessed by the

petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner did his Ph.D in the year

1994 and two increments were given to him in lieu thereof, whereas

the proforma respondent did Ph.D in the year 2008 when three

incremen ts were permissible on acquiring the Ph.D. Degree. This

lead to pay anomaly between the petitioner and proforma

respondent. He submitted that at the end of the day, fact of the

matter remained that the junior was getting more salary than the

senior and in this backdrop, the act of the respondents of not

stepping