Voluntary pay-fixation choices creating disparity do not entitle a senior to pay stepping-up.

The petitioner and Shri Bal Kishan were appointed as Patwaris in 1991, promoted as Kanungos on 31 May 2010, as Naib Tehsildars in 2016, and as Tehsildars in March 2022.

In December 2025, the petitioner’s basic pay was ₹65,800, compared with ₹69,800 for Bal Kishan.

On promotion as Kanungo, the petitioner opted for pay fixation from the date he joined the promotional post, while Bal Kishan opted for fixation after receiving his next increment in the lower post; the latter’s pay was therefore fixed from 1 January 2011.

Under the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022, the petitioner opted for revision by a factor of 2.59, whereas Bal Kishan opted for a 15% enhancement.

The petitioner’s representation seeking removal of the pay difference was rejected in 2020; he filed the writ petition on 6 April 2026, seeking pay parity and consequential benefits.

Whether the petitioner was denied the opportunity to exercise an option for pay fixation on promotion as Kanungo, such that the resulting pay difference constituted an anomaly warranting stepping up under FR 22(1)(a)(i).

Whether the petitioner was entitled to have his pay stepped up to match his junior’s pay under the Revised Pay Rules, 2022, despite their having exercised different pay-revision options.

FR 22(1)(a)(i) and the principle reflected in the Government’s instructions on removal of pay anomalies permit stepping up of a senior employee’s pay in specified circumstances, including where the senior draws less pay than a junior promoted to an identical post in the same cadre and the anomaly results directly from application of the relevant pay-fixation rules.

Rules 6 and 8 of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022 provide for employee options concerning pay revision and pay fixation on promotion, and make an option once exercised final.

Rule 9(1) specifies circumstances in which stepping up is admissible, subject to its conditions; Rule 9(2)(i) excludes stepping up where the pay difference arises because employees opted for revision using different factors.

The Court considered *Pyar Chand Sharma v. State of H.P.*, *Gurcharan Singh Grewal v. Punjab State Electricity Board* and *Union of India v. C.R. Madhava Murthy*, which address stepping up in cases of pay anomalies, but distinguished *Pyar Chand Sharma* on its facts.

The Court found that the petitioner had been given, and had exercised, the option available on his promotion as Kanungo. His choice of immediate fixation differed from Bal Kishan’s choice to receive an increment in the lower post before fixation, and the resulting difference was attributable to those options, not a denial of pay-fixation benefits.

The Court further held that the two employees’ later pay difference resulted from their distinct options under the 2022 Rules: the petitioner chose the 2.59 factor, while Bal Kishan chose the 15% enhancement. Rule 9(2)(i) therefore barred stepping up on that basis.

*Pyar Chand Sharma* did not assist the petitioner because the pay difference there arose in materially different circumstances, including the senior employee’s position in the feeder category and subsequent seniority in the promoted cadre.

The Court also noted the petitioner’s delay in challenging the rejected representation.

The writ petition was dismissed, and any pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.