Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh vs Pspcl & Ors on 19 November, 2025
1
CWP-10263
10263-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
207 CWP-10263-2014
Date of decision:19.11.2025
.11.2025
Ranjit Singh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present : Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Sr. ADvocate with Mr. Abhishek Singla,
Mr. B.P.S. Thakur and Ms. Priya Kaushik, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR,
BRAR J. (Oral)
1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the speaking order dated 17.01.2014 (Annexure P P-6)
6) passed by the respondents and for a direction to grant the petitioner 1st and 2nd Time Bound Promotional Scales (TBPS) after 9/16 years of service with stepping up of his pay at par with his junior, Smt. Seema Rani, LDC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was appointed as Peon on 26.06.1982 and was promoted as LDC on 31.03.1997. He refers to the comparative pay statement (Annexure P P-5)
5) 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 13:48:33 ::: 2 CWP-10263 10263-2014 which clearly indicates that the petitioner was drawing higher pay than his junior Smt. Seema Rani (direct recruit LDC) until June 2006, but after she was granted TBPS after 9 and 16 years of service, she started drawing a higher salary. The petitioner made several representations seeking stepping up of his pay or grant of TBPS with LDC as his ind induction uction post, with an undertaking to surrender the TBPS already availed in the lower post of Peon.
He further contends that the respondents have, in the past, allowed such change of induction post and surrender of TBPS benefits for other categories of employees.
yees. The impugned order dated 17.01.2014 (Annexure P P-6)
6) rejected the petitioner's claim solely on the ground that he had already availed TBPS in the induction post of Peon and that an anomaly with a direct recruit cannot be claimed by a promotee.
3. Per contra,, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that as per Finance Circular No. 34/95 dated 31.10.1995, an employee can avail the benefit of Time Bound Promotional Scales in only one induction post during his entire service. The petitioner, having alr already eady availed the first TBPS in the induction post of Peon w.e.f. 26.06.1991, cannot now claim the same benefit again with LDC as his induction post. He further relies on Finance Circular No. 21/94 dated 01.06.1994 to contend that an anomaly in pay of a senior ior employee vis-à-vis vis vis a directly recruited junior employee can only be removed if the senior is also a direct recruit, and not when the senior is a promotee. He argues that the petitioner, being promoted from Class Class-IV IV under the 20% quota, and Smt. Seema R Rani, ani, being a direct recruit, 2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 13:48:33 ::: 3 CWP-10263 10263-2014 constitutes different classes, and thus, the principle of stepping up of pay to maintain parity is not applicable. He concludes by asserting that the departmental circulars, which have statutory force, clearly bar the petitioner's r's claim, and the relief sought would be contrary to the established service regulations.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
5. The core issue for consideration is whether a senior employee, employee who is a promotee, can be paid less than his junior, who is a direct recruit, and whether the principle of stepping up of pay is applicable to remove such an anomaly.
6. A Two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamlakar vs. Union of India, (1999) 756,, while speaking through (1999) 4 SCC 756 Justice M. Jagannadha Rao has held as under:
"12. We have considered the limited issue. We are of the view that all these appellants should get the same relief as the appellants in the Civil Appeal which arose out of Special Leave Petition No. 16646 of 1995. Once they were all in one cadre, the distinction nction between direct recruits and promotees disappears at any rate so far as equal treatment in the same cadre for payment of the pay scale given. The birth marks have no relevance in this connection. If any distinction is made on the question of their ri right ght to the post of Data Processing Assistants they were holding and to its scale - which were matters common to all of them before the impugned order of the Government of India was passed on 2.7.1990 - then any distinction between Data Processing Assistant Assistantss who were direct recruits and those who were promotees, is not 3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 13:48:33 ::: 4 CWP-10263 10263-2014 permissible. We, therefore, reject the respondent's contention. We have examined the record and the common points arising in this case and those in Civil Appeal which arose out of Special Leavee Petition 16646 of 1995 and we are unable to find any lawful distinction between the appellants and those in the other appeal which has been allowed."
7. Reliance may be placed on another Two Judge Bench Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union off India vs. P. Jagdish, 1783, which while dealing with a situation where seniors were 1997 AIR SC 1783, drawing less pay than their juniors due to fixation of special pay in the lower post, while speaking through Justice G.B. Pattanaik observed that, "7. So far as the second question is concerned it depends upon the applicability of the principle of stepping up. Admittedly, the respondents has been promoted earlier to the category of Head Clerks and some of their juniors who were continuing as Senior Clerks againstst the identified posts carrying special pay of Rs. 35/- per month on being promoted to the post of Head Clerks later than the respondents got their pay fixed at a higher level than the respondents. Under the provisions of Fundamental Rules to remove the anomaly nomaly of a Government servant promoted or appointed to a higher post earlier drawing a lower rate of pay in that post than another Government servant junior to him in the lower grade and promoted or appointed subsequently to the higher post, the principle of stepping up of the pay is applied. In such cases the pay of the senior officer in the higher post is required to be stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for the junior officer in that higher post. The stepping up is required to be done with effect from the date of promotion or appointment of the junior officer. On refixation of the pay of the senior officer by applying the principle of stepping up, the next increment of the said officer would be drawn on completion of the requisite qualifyingqualifyin service with effect from the date of the refixation of pay. This principle becomes applicable when the junior officer and the senior officer belong to the same category and the post from which they have been promoted and in the promoted cadre the junior officer on being promoted later than the senior officer gets a higher pay. This being the principle of stepping up contained in the Fundamental Rules and admittedly the 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 13:48:33 ::: 5 CWP-10263 10263-2014 respondents being seniors to several other Senior Clerks and the respondents having been n promoted earlier than many of their juniors who were promoted later to the post of Head Clerks, the principle of stepping up should be made applicable to the respondents with effect from the date their juniors in the erstwhile cadre of Senior Clerks get promoted to the cadre of Head Clerks and their pay was fixed at a higher slab than that of the respondent. The stepping up should be done in such a way that the anomaly of juniors getting higher salary than the seniors in the promoted category of Head Cler Clerk k would be removed and the pay of the seniors like the respondents would be stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for their junior officer in the higher post of Head Clerk Clerk.. In fact the Tribunal by the impugned order has directed to apply the principle nciple of stepping up and we see no infirmity with the same direction subject to the aforesaid clarifications......"
8. More recently, a Two Bench Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. C.R. Madhava Murthy, 2022 (6) SCC 183 while speaking speaking through Justice M.R. Shah made the following observation, "6. Therefore, it was a case where a junior was drawing more pay on account of upgradation under the ACP Scheme and there was an anomaly and therefore, the pay of senior was required to be ste stepped pped up. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has rightly directed the appellants herein to step up the pay of the original writ petitioners keeping in view of pay scale which has been granted to the juniors from the date they have started drawing lesser pay than their juniors. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. No interference of this Court is called for."
9. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the petitioner and Smt. Seema Rani Rani belongs to the same cadre of LDC and is governed by a joint seniority list. The petitioner is senior to Smt. Seema Rani. The petitioner was drawing a higher pay than her until she was granted TBPS.
Thereafter, a clear anomaly has arisen where the junior is drawing more pay 5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 13:48:33 ::: 6 CWP-10263 10263-2014 than the senior. The respondents' reliance on administrative circulars to deny the benefit of stepping up is contrary to the constitutional scheme and the settled law that a senior cannot be paid less than his junior in the same cadre.
10. The respondents' argument that the petitioner, being a promotee, cannot claim parity with a direct recruit is no longer res integra and stands rejected by the Supreme Court in Kamlakar (supra). Similarly, the plea that TBPS can be availed only in one induction post may be relevant for granting fresh TBPS, but it cannot be used to perpetuate an anomaly in pay between a senior and a junior in the same cadre.
11. Consequently, this Court is constrained to hold that the impugned order dated 17.01.2014 (A (Annexure P-6)
6) is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The respondents are duty-bound duty bound to remove the pay anomaly and step up the pay of the petitioner to at least the level of his junior, Smt. Seema Rani, from the date she started drawing a higher salary.
12. In view of the discussion above, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.01.2014 (Annexure P P-6)
6) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to step up the pay of the petitioner to t the level of his junior, Smt. Seema Rani, LDC, from the date she started drawing a higher salary, and to pay the arrears within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
13. No order as to costs.
6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 13:48:33 ::: 7 CWP-10263 10263-2014
14. Pending miscellaneouss application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE November 19, 2025 P.C Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No 7 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 13:48:33 :::