Budhi Singh vs State Of H.P And Others

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

The grievance of the petitioner is that there is anomaly in his pay and that his junior Shri Attar Singh is drawing higher pay than him. With pleadings that the petitioner is entitled to re-fixation of his pay after rectification of the pay anomaly from the due date with all incidental benefits, the instant writ petition has been filed.

Respondents in their reply have submitted that on perusal of Character Rolls of Assistant Sub Inspector Sh. Attar Singh, pay anomaly has been observed w.e.f. 01.01.1996. That after vetting the comparative statements of petitioner and ASI Attar Singh, the pay anomaly in the pay scale of ASI Attar Singh has been rectified/revised and office order in this regard was issued on 14.10.2021. In this regard, it would be appropriate to reproduce hereinafter the relevant paras from the preliminary submissions of the reply:

“3. That it is most humbly submitted that on perusal of Character Roll of Sh. Attar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, District Solan, pay anomaly has been observed w.e.f. 01.01.1996, as such, comparative statement in respect of ASI Budhi Singh and ASI Attar Singh, District Solan were prepared and sent to the office of Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2, for vetting. A copy of letter No CRC/2021-87514 dated 06.10.2021 is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1 for the kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court.

That it is most submitted that after vetting the comparative statements of petitioner and ASI Attar Singh, the pay anomaly in pay scale of ASI Attar Singh has been rectified/revised. Hence, the pay of petitioner and ASI Attar Singh is equal and no anomaly remains between them. The copy of letter No. A.5(CWP No. 4212)/SR-Distts.2020-8138 dated 14.10.2021 alongwith Comparative Statements is annexed herewith as Annexure R-2 for the kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court.”

In view of the fair stand taken by the respondents, the grievances of the petitioner have been redressed. This is not even disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. His only prayer is that the respondents be directed to implement the office order dated 14.10.2021. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that this office order must have been implemented by now, however, in case it has not been implemented, then the same shall be implemented within a period of four weeks from today.

In view of the stand taken by the respondents in their reply, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to implement the office order dated 14.10.2021 (Annexure R-2) mentioned in para-4 of the preliminary submissions of their reply within a period of four weeks, if not already implemented. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.