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 his pay may be ordered to be brought at par with proforma respondent and be fixed at the same amount 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 paid the arrears of enhanced pay from the date when pay of the proforma respondent has been fixed a t a higher amount as compared to the petitioner.

(D) That Clause 9.10 & 9.11 of UGC Regulations 2010 along with Clauses 7 (xxi) & 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 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 to an additional increment earned on acquiring a higher qualification, the same will not constitute an anomaly for his senior to 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 increments 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 up the pay of the petitioner to bring it at par with the proforma respondent is not sustainable in law.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that there is no merit in the petition. By referring to the reply filed by respondent No.3, he submitted that the proforma respondent obtained his Ph.D. Degree in the year 2008 and in terms of the UGC Pay Scale of 2006, he was entitled for three advance increments, whereas the petitioner was granted only two increments, as per UGC Pay Scale, 1996, when he acquired the Ph.D. Degree. He submitted that in this case, as the proforma respondent was drawing more salary on account of three increments, which were granted to him on acquiring Ph.D. Degree, therefore, this matter was discussed at