DAYA NAND VERMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MATERIAL facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner is seeking pay scale of Rs. 2000 -3500 with effect from 1.7.1986. He started working as Assistant with effect from 23.7.1971. He was promoted as Senior Assistant with effect from 28.2.1984. S/Shri Sudama Ram, S.S. Saini and Durga Dutt,all juniors to the petitioner, were promoted as Assistant Superintendent (Treasury) with effect from 14.11.1985, 21.11.1985 and 11.12.1985, respectively. Similarly, Ishwar Chand, Bansi Lal and Hari Singh were promoted as Assistant Superintendent (Treasury) with effect from 9.4.1987 and 21.9.1987, respectively. The pay scales of Assistant/Senior Assistant/Assistant Superintendent (Treasury)/ Assistant Treasury Officer were Rs. 160 -400, Rs. 225 -500, Rs. 225 -500 and Rs. 300 -600 prior to 1.1.1978. The pay scales of these categories were revised after 1.1.1978 to Rs. 570 -1080, Rs. 600 -1120, Rs. 620 -1200 and Rs. 750 -1300. The post of Assistant Superintendent was re -designated as Superintendent Grade -IV. The pay scales were further revised with effect from 1.1.1986 and the post of Assistant was clubbed with the post of Senior Assistant and it was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1800 -3200. The Assistant Superintendents (Treasury) were granted the pay scale of Rs. 2000 -3500 and the post was re -designated as Superintendent Grade -II. The pay scale of Assistant Treasury Officer was revised to Rs. 2000 -3500 and the post was re -designated as Treasury Officer.

(2.) MS . Ranjana Parmar has strenuously argued that though his client was promoted to the post of Treasury Officer before one Sh. Sudama Ram, S.S. Saini and Durga Dutt, however, his client is getting less pay than his juniors. She has further contended that it is settled law that junior cannot draw higher salary than his senior.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the pleadings carefully.