Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On : 27.02.2026 vs Of on 17 March, 2026
2026:HHC:7384
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWPOA No.172 of 2019
Reserved on : 27.02.2026
.
Decided on: 17th March, 2026
____________________________________________________________________
Roshan Lal and others ...Petitioners
Versus
of
State of Himachal Pradesh and another ...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge
rt
Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes
For the petitioners: Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate vice Ms.
Shreya Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Deputy
Advocate General.
Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge
The petitioners, by way of present petition, have
prayed for the following substantive reliefs:
“(i) That the respondents may be directed to
pay to the applicants salary in the scale ofRs.4400-7000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and Rs.1350-
2400 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 with all consequential
benefits.
(ii) That the respondents may also be
directed to pay to the applicants the arrears
due and admissible to them as a result of the
relief at Sr. No.(i) above. They may also be
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS
2
directed to pay interest @18% per annum on
the arrears of salary.”
2. The petitioners have averred in the petition that
.
they are working as Laboratory Attendants with the
respondents and are presently working at Government High
Schools/Government Senior Secondary Schools/Government
of
Colleges in the respondent Department. The post of
Laboratory Attendant was re-designated as Senior Laboratory
rt
Attendant when the pay scales of Laboratory Attendants were
revised on the Punjab pattern, and they were given the scale
of Rs.950-1800 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Further, the scale was
revised to Rs.3120-5160 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and, at present,
they are getting the salary in the said pay scale.
3. Vide memo dated 01.01.1990, respondent No.2
wrote a letter to all the Principals of Government Colleges
seeking clarification regarding duties and responsibilities of
Laboratory Staff in the Colleges. It has been mentioned in the
said letter that a confusion has been created in some
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS
3
Colleges in respect of the responsibilities and duties as per
the duty norms and it is clarified in the said letter that there is
.
no change in the nature of duties as already defined in spite
of change in classification of certain categories of employees.
Vide this letter, suggestions were also sought for
modification, if any. Communication dated 30.10.1964,
of
whereby the norms were formulated is also annexed with this
rt
letter. As per the norms dated 30.10.1964, the duties of Junior
Lecturer Assistant and Laboratory Attendant are as under:
“Duties of the Junior Lecturer Assistant:
1. He will be personally responsible for the Laboratory, its
equipment and its general upkeep.
2. He will personally look after the maintenance of expensive
App. (requiring technical care) in particular and ordinaryapparatus in general.
3. He will be responsible for the lying of equipment in the Labs.
Or in the fields or trips. In case of Music Deptt. he will keep
all the instruments turned and in perfect order before every
practical.
4. He will arrange the apparatus etc. needed for the lecture
work.
5. He will assist the Senior Lecturer Assistant in annual stock
checking and in work regarding purchase of Apparatus
locally or otherwise.
6. He will see that the electric fans and lights, water taps and
gas taps are not used necessarily and wastefully in the
rooms and labs. under.
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS
4
Duties of Lab. Attendant:
2. He will dust the Labs, Museums Lecture rooms and other
rooms in the Department concerned and shall personally
clean sinks, Brasswares windowpane etc. In case of Zoology.
Deptt. the Lab. Attendant will chloroform and remove the
dissected animals, when asked.
3. He will clean Glassware and ordinary equipment.
3. He will assist the Junior Lecturer Assistant in carrying the
Apparatus etc. required for the lecture work and practical
work.”
4. Thereafter, another communication dated
of
01.12.1993 was issued by respondent No.2 forwarding
rt
decision of the Government regarding the duties of
Laboratory Attendants to all the Principals of Government
Senior Secondary Schools and requested that the duties be
implemented strictly. As per the decision, the Laboratory
Attendants working in the Government Senior Secondary
Schools were assigned specific duties, and as per the
procedure, the Laboratory Attendants working in the Schools
and Colleges are inter-transferable and carry the same pay
scales. The duties assigned as per communication dated
01.12.1993, are as under:
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS
5
“Duties of Attendants working in Govt. Senior Secondary
Schools.
1. He will be incharge of store of concerned department.
2. To maintain the stock register with the assistance of Senior
.
Lecturer of his department.
3. He will also verify every year the material/apparatus as per
stock register with the assistance of concerned Lecturers of
his department.
4. He will take care of cleanliness of laboratory room and
concerned rooms of other departments.
5. He will also look after electric fans, electricity, taps, gas plant
of
etc. to see that these are not used wrongly.
6. He will also arrange for apparatus/instruments to be used
by lower classes (6th to 10th) when required with the
assistance of concerned Lecturer.
7.
rt
In case it is possible he will also undertake minor repair of
instruments of laboratory with the assistance of concernedLecturer.
8. He will also correspond with the firm for purchase of
laboratory equipment etc. with the assistance of concernedLecturer.
9. He will not go on leave without recommendations of the
concerned Lecturer. In case he is to go on leave, he will handover the keys to the Senior Lecturer of his department.
10. Annual confidential reports of Laboratory Attendants will be
written by the Principal of the School.
11. Laboratory Attendants of class IV cadre will be exempted
from the work.
12. When required the work of Laboratory Attendants can be
inter-changed so that the work of School could go on
smoothly.
13. When required he will be responsible for arrangement of
water in the laboratory.
14. When required he will make local purchase for the School.”
5. The petitioners have also placed on record the
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS
6
office order dated 17.08.1990, whereby one Sh. Jia Lal, Lab.
Attendant, working in Government College, Rampur Bushahr,
.
was relieved of his duties on his transfer to Government
Senior Secondary School, Shimla-1, and vide another office
order dated 23.11.2000, one Sh. Budhi Chand, Lab Attendant
of the same college, was relieved of his duties and was
of
directed to report for duty to the Principal, Government
rt
Senior Secondary School, Rampur Bushahr.
6. The petitioners have placed on record the
tentative seniority list of Laboratory Attendants as issued by
the respondent Department in December 1988, wherein even
the persons, who are working as Laboratory Attendants in
Colleges, have been shown, since there is a common cadre of
Laboratory Attendants working in Government High School
and Government Senior Secondary Schools.
7. The promotional post from the feeder category of
Laboratory Assistant is Junior Lecturer Assistant and the same
is made on the basis of the seniority list of Laboratory
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS
7
Attendants irrespective of whether they are working in
Colleges or Schools. The petitioners have placed on record
.
office order dated 11.12.1998 (Annexure A-5), whereby the
Laboratory Attendants working in Schools have been
promoted as Junior Lecturer Assistants.
8. The petitioners have submitted that there are no
of
posts of Junior Lecturer Assistants in the Schools, though the
rt
persons who are working as Laboratory Attendants in the
Schools are performing identical duties as were performed by
Junior Lecturer Assistants, as per Annexures A-1 and A-2,
where the duties of Laboratory Attendants have been
prescribed. It has been averred that as per the norms fixed,
the Lab Attendants will assist the Junior Lecturer Assistants in
carrying the apparatus etc. required for lecture and practical
work. Since there are no posts of Junior Lecturer Assistants,
the persons who are working as Laboratory Attendants in the
schools are performing the duties, which are otherwise to be
discharged by the Junior Lecturer Assistants and thus, they
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS
8
are entitled to the same salary or pay scale. It has also been
pleaded that though the petitioners have been designated as
.
Laboratory Attendants (now Senior Laboratory Attendants),
but they are performing the duties of Junior Lecturer
Assistants and thus they are entitled to the same pay scale as
granted to the Junior Lecturer Assistants on the principle of
of
“equal pay for equal work.”
9.
rt
The respondents filed reply to the petition and
averred that the petition is not maintainable, because as per
the R&P Rules notified by the Government vide notification
dated 03.08.2000, the pay scale of Laboratory Attendant has
been prescribed as Rs.3120-5160 and the qualification for the
same has been prescribed as Matriculation or its equivalent
examination with Science from a recognized
Board/University, whereas, as per notification dated 04
October 1999, Junior Lecturer Assistants/Laboratory
Assistants (College Cadre) have been granted a pay scale of
Rs.4400-7000. Further, the post of Junior Lecturer Assistant is
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS
9
filled up from amongst the eligible Laboratory Attendants
working in Government Senior Secondary Schools/High
.
Schools. Thus, the claim of the petitioners for the grant of pay
scale of Rs.4400-7000 is not at all maintainable as nothing can
be granted contrary to the provisions of the R&P Rules.
10. The respondents have admitted that the post of
of
Laboratory Attendant has been re-designated as Senior
rt
Laboratory Attendant. As far as the issue regarding the
transfer of Sh. Jia Lal and Budhi Chand is concerned, they had
been transferred on the same post and, by their transfer,
there was neither any change in their duties nor in their pay
scale, and they have not claimed anything in that regard. It
has been admitted that there is no post of Junior Lecturer
Assistant/Laboratory Assistant in the Government Senior
Secondary Schools and the said posts are sanctioned only for
Colleges. Annexure A-5 appended with the petition shows
that the Laboratory Attendants working in the Schools are
promoted as Junior Lecturer Assistants and posted in
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS
10
Government Colleges. Since the petitioners are performing
the duties of Laboratory Attendants for which a pay scale of
.
Rs.3120-5160 has been prescribed, the petitioners cannot
claim parity with pay scale of Rs.4400-7000.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and also perused the case file carefully.
of
12. It is not in dispute that there are no posts of Junior
rt
Lecturer Assistants in the Schools. The duties being
performed by the petitioners in the Schools are also the
same, since as per the decision regarding the duties of
Laboratory Attendants, it has been mentioned that the
Laboratory Attendant will assist the Junior Lecturer Assistant
in carrying the apparatus etc. as required for lecture and
practical work. Thereafter vide communication dated
01.12.1993, the decision of the Government dated 20.08.1993
prescribing the norms was conveyed to all the Principals,
Government Senior Secondary Schools and as per the same,
the Laboratory Attendants were made incharge of store of
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS
11
concerned department and to maintain the register with the
assistance of Senior Lecturer of the Department, which too,
.
are the duties of the Junior Lecturer Assistant. Once there are
no posts of Junior Lecturer Assistants in the Schools, the job
which is to be performed by them is being performed by the
petitioners, who are working as Laboratory Attendants. The
of
duties being performed by the petitioners are also not
disputed.
rt
13. No doubt, so far as prescribing the pay scale of a
post is concerned, it is a policy decision to be taken by the
State Government and the role of the Courts is very limited.
However, when it comes to the notice of the Court that the
nature of duties and functions performed by an employee is
similar to those being discharged by another category of
employees, it is the duty of the Court to seek parity of pay
under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India.
14. A perusal of the documents placed on record
reveals that there is no dispute regarding the duties,
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS
12
responsibilities, and work being performed by the petitioners
as Laboratory Attendants, and the same work, which is being
.
performed by the Junior Lecturer Assistants. Thus, the
petitioners cannot be denied the same pay scale as granted
to the Junior Lecturer Assistants working in the Colleges.
15. It is also not in dispute that there is a common
of
seniority list of Laboratory Attendants in the Schools and
rt
Colleges, whose designation has now been changed to Senior
Laboratory Attendant, and thus the petitioners cannot be
denied the same pay scale of Rs.4400-7000, as is being given
to the Junior Lecturer Assistants.
16. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Randhir Singh vs. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618,
has held that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is not
a mere doctrine slogan, but a constitutional goal, capable of
being attained through constitutional remedies, and this
principle has to be read with Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. This decision was affirmed by the
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS
13
Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.S.
Nakara and others vs. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305.
.
17. The learned counsel for the respondents-State
vehemently argued that the fixation of pay and parity and
assigning the duties is the function of the executive and
depends upon the financial capacity of the Government and
of
the priority is given to different types of posts under the
rt
policy decision of the State Government, and this Court
cannot compare the posts or venture into the aspect of
granting the same pay scale. No doubt, the scope of this
Court in such matters is very limited, as propounded by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.T. Veerappa and others vs. State
of Karnataka and others, (2006) 9 SCC 406. However, it has
also been held that the Courts should interfere with
administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay
parity when they find such decisions to be unreasonable,
unjust, and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in
ignorance of material and relevant factors. The relevant para
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS
14
of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
“13. He next contended that fixation of pay and parity
in duties is the function of the executive and financial.
capacity of the Government and the priority given to
different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the
Government are also relevant factors. In support of this
contention, he has placed reliance on State of Haryana v.
Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. And Union of
India v. S.B. Vohra. There is no dispute nor can there be
any to the principle as settled in State of Haryana v.
of
Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. that
fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is
the function of the executive and the scope of judicial
review of administrative decision in this regard is very
rt
limited. However, it is also equally well settled that the
courts should interfere with administrative decisionspertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they
find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and
prejudicial to a section of employees and taken inignorance of material and relevant factors.”
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana State
Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and others vs. G.S.
Uppal and others (along with connected matters), (2008) 7
SCC 375, has again reiterated that the judicial review in
matters of fixation of pay and determination of parity is
limited, but again reiterated that the Court would be justified
in interfering with the pay fixation if it finds such a decision to
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS
15
be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of
employees. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are
.
reproduced hereunder:
“21. There is no dispute nor can there be any to the
principle as settled in the above-cited decisions of thisCourt that fixation of pay and determination of parity in
duties is the function of the Executive and the scope of
judicial review of administrative decision in this regard isof
very limited. However, it is also equally well-settled that
the courts should interfere with the administrative
decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity
rt
when they find such a decision to be unreasonable,
unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and
taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors.
[see K.T. Veerappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
(2006) 9 SCC 406].”
22. Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel assisted
by Shri Raj Kumar Gupta and Shri A.N.Bardiyar appearing
for respondents in C.A. Nos. 9244/03 and 9248/03; Mr.
Rishi Malhotra, Advocate appearing for respondents in C.A.
9239/2003, in support of the judgment of the Division
Bench, contended that no exceptions can be taken to the
well- reasoned judgment recorded by the Division Bench of
the High Court. They submitted that the Division Bench has
analysed in great detail the factual situation and legal
proposition covering the field of controversy, therefore,
there is apparently no infirmity or perversity in the
judgment impugned in these appeals inviting interference
by this Court.
23. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the
learned counsel for the parties, we have scrutinized the
judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in the
backdrop of the factual situation of the case as well as in
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS
16
the light of the principle enunciated in the above-cited
decisions.
24. It is well-settled that the State can make reasonable
classification if it has a nexus with the object sought to be
.
achieved. It is admitted position in the present case that
posts of SDOs/SDEs/AEs can be filled up by the Corporation
by any one of the three known methods, namely, direct
recruitment, on promotion or by transfer/deputation. Once
a person is appointed to a post in a particular cadre, the
source of his recruitment or the method of his
appointment becomes irrelevant. The Corporation has
of
framed its Service Bye-Laws and by virtue of Rule 5.1 of
Part-V of the Service Bye-Laws, each post in the
Corporation will carry a time scale of pay; the present pay
scale being indicated in Appendix-II and further that the
rt
pay scale is subject to revision by the Board, which will,
however, generally follow the pattern adopted by the
Government of Haryana from time to time.
25. The employees of the Corporation, since its inception in
1970, had been getting the same pay scales as that of the
employees of the Haryana Government and the Board of
Directors having already equated the pay scales of the
Engineers of the Corporation commensurate to the pay
scales of the Government employees, but the State
Government has not concurred with the decision of the
Board of Directors.
26. By virtue of Clause 81(v) of the Memorandum of
Association of the Corporation, the Directors of the
Corporation in their discretion have powers to appoint,
remove or suspend such Managers, Secretaries, Officers,
Clerks, Agents and Servants of permanent, temporary or
special services, as they may from time to time think fit,
and to determine their powers and duties and fix their
salaries or emoluments and to require security of such
amount as they think fit in such instances. The power to fix
the salaries or emoluments of the employees of the
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS
17
Corporation, thus, specifically rests with the Directors of
the Corporation and by virtue of Rule 5.1 of Part-V of the
Service Bye-Laws, as mentioned in the earlier part of the
judgment, the Corporation had favourably considered the
.
claim of the respondents by recommending the same
scales for them, as were being given to their counterparts
in the service of the Government Departments.
27. The proposal of the Board of Directors of the
Corporation for revision of pay scales to its employees
came up before the Standing Committee in its meeting
held on 28.05.1992 and the Standing Committee approved
of
the pay scales in a selective manner. The revision in pay
scales of the Superintending Engineers, Accounts Officers,
Circle Head Draftsmen, Divisional Head Draftsmen, etc.
were approved, whereas the revision of pay scales of the
rt
respondents, who are AEs/SDOs/SDEs, was postponed and
it was decided that the matter would be examined
separately by the Finance Department.
28. The State of Haryana in its written statement filed
before the High Court admitted that although the technical
qualifications of incumbents on the posts of
AEs/SDOs/SDEs in various Government Departments,
Boards and Corporations are identical, yet the nature of
duties and responsibilities, quantum of workload and level
of technical expertise involved do vary from organization
to organization depending upon the nature of activities
undertaken by the respective organizations. It is further
contended that the salary and allowances of the
deputationists of the Corporation are governed by the
terms and conditions of their deputation as decided by the
Government from time to time. Therefore, the respondents
cannot be treated and equated at par with the similar
categories of employees of the State Government.
29. The learned Single Judge of the High Court as also the
learned Judges of the Division Bench have considered the
controversy in detail in their judgments holding the
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS
18
respondents entitled for the revision of pay scales on a par
with their counter-parts working in the State of Haryana.
30. It is not in dispute that a deputationist holds the post
in a particular cadre office for the duration he remains on
.
deputation and is a part of that cadre. No material has
been placed on record by the appellants to show that the
deputationists are appointed against only certain
particular posts or that they cannot be posted or
transferred to the posts held by the respondents. In fact, it
is an admitted position that the posts are mutually inter-
changeable. In this situation, it is reasonable to infer that
of
a deputationist performs the same duties as those
performed by other persons working in the cadre. It is also
an admitted position that the qualifications laid down for
recruitment in the Corporation are identical to those
rt
prescribed in the Departments of the Government. It is
further clear that the respondents have continued to work
in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. As
against this, their counter-parts in the Government and
also the persons, who are posted in the Corporation by
way of deputation, would get the scale of Rs.3000-4500 on
completion of five years of service and are placed in the
scale of Rs.4100-5300 (to the extent of 20% of the posts) on
completion of 12 years of service. The respondents were
obviously placed at a disadvantageous position. The
decision of the Government in rejecting the proposal of the
Board of Directors suffers from the vice of invidious
discrimination and cannot be sustained because the very
same decision of the Board with regard to all other
employees has since been accepted and approved by the
State Government. On the scrutiny of the material on
record, it is clear that the appellants did not produce any
evidence on record to establish that the working
conditions, responsibilities and nature of duties, etc. of the
respondents are different from their counter-parts working
in the same categories in the State Government, Boards
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS
19
and other Corporations, etc. and also the persons who are
working with the Corporation on deputation.
31. A careful examination shows that the issue was not
really about grant of pay scales to Corporation Engineers
.
on par with PWD Engineers. When the pay revision took
place, the revised pay scales that were given to Engineers
of the State Government were also given to the engineers
of the Corporation with effect from 1.1.1986 thereby
maintaining the parity. What was not extended to the
Corporation employees, which is the subject matter of the
grievance, is the further revision by way of “removal of
of
anomaly in pay scales” given to AEE/AE/SDO/SDE of the
State Government with effect from 1.5.1989 vide circular
dated 2.6.1989 of the Finance Commissioner. The real
question would be whether what is given by way of
rt
anomaly removal in the case of Engineers of the State
Government, should automatically be extended to the
corresponding categories of engineers of the Corporation.
32. When, after a pay revision, an anomaly is found in the
pay scale given to a class of Government servants and
such anomaly is rectified, it is not a new pay revision but a
correction of the original pay revision, or an amendment
to the pay scale that has already been granted. Therefore,
where the pay revision extended to the government
servants has already been extended to the employees of
the Corporation also, it follows that any correction of
anomaly in the revised pay scale given to the government
servants should also be made in the case of those who
were earlier given parity by extending the pay scale which
is the subject matter of the correction. It should be borne
in mind that the question whether Corporation engineers
were on par with PWD Engineers and should be given
parity in pay scales was already decided when the pay
scale revision granted to Government (PWD) engineers was
extended to the corporation Engineers also with effect
from 1.1.1986. That question did not again arise when the
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS
20
anomaly in the pay revision was rectified with reference to
the Government engineers. When the anomaly in the pay
scale of Government engineers was rectified, the
rectification should apply to Corporation engineers also to
.
maintain the parity.
33. The plea of the appellants that the Corporation is
running under losses and it cannot meet the financial
burden on account of revision of scales of pay has been
rejected by the High Court and, in our view, rightly so.
Whatever may be the factual position, there appears to be
no basis for the action of the appellants in denying the
of
claim of revision of pay scales to the respondents. If the
Government feels that the Corporation is running into
losses, measures of economy, avoidance of frequent
writing off of dues, reduction of posts or repatriating
rt
deputationists may provide the possible solution to the
problem. Be that as it may, such a contention may not be
available to the appellants in the light of the principle
enunciated by this Court in M.M.R. Khan v. Union of India
[1990 Supp. SCC 191] and Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B.
Staff Canteen Workers’ Union [(2000) 4 SCC 245]. However,
so long as the posts do exist and are manned, there
appears to be no justification for granting the respondents
a scale of pay lower than that sanctioned for those
employees who are brought on deputation. In fact, the
sequence of events, discussed above, clearly shows that the
employees of the Corporation have been treated at par
with those in Government at the time of revision of scales
of pay on every occasion.”
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs.
Dineshan K.K., (2008) 1 SCC 586, has held that the principle of
“equal pay for equal work” has assumed the status of a
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS
21
fundamental right.
20. No doubt, it is the task of expert bodies like the
.
Pay Commission to determine the pay structure, yet judicial
review is not altogether excluded. It has been held that in
cases where there is no dispute with regard to the
qualifications, duties and responsibilities of persons holding
of
identical posts or ranks, but they are treated differently,
rt
merely because they belong to different departments, or
where the basis of qualification for a post is ex facie irrational,
the Court can interfere.
21. Again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab State
Power Corporation Limited vs. Rajesh Kumar Jindal and
others, (2019) 3 SCC 547, has held that it is the duty of the
employee seeking parity of pay under Article 39(d) of the
Constitution of India to prove and establish that he has been
discriminated against, as the question of parity has to be
decided after consideration of various factors. The relevant
paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced hereunder:
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS
22
14. “Ordinarily, the courts will not enter upon the task of
job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like
the Pay Commission etc. The aggrieved employees
claiming parity must establish that they are unjustly.
treated by arbitrary action or discriminated. In Kshetriya
Kisan Gramin Bank v. D.B. Sharma and Others (2001) 1
SCC 353, this Court held as under:- (SCC p.363, Para 7).
7. The next question that arises for consideration is, as
to what extent the High Court would be justified in
exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 to interfere with the findings of an expert body
of
like the Equation Committee. In State of U.P. and
Others v. J.P. Chaurasia and Others (1989) 1 SCC
121, this Court unequivocally held that in the matter
of equation of posts or equation of pay, the same
rtshould be left to the Executive Government, who can
get it determined by expert bodies like the Pay
Commission, and such expert body would be the best
judge to evaluate the nature of duties and
responsibilities of the posts and when such
determination by a commission or committee is made,
the court should normally accept it and should not try
to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that
it was made with extraneous consideration.”
15. In S.C. Chandra and Others v. State of Jharkhand
and Others (2007) 8 SCC 279, this Court held as under:-
33. It may be mentioned that granting pay scales is a
purely executive function and hence the court shouldnot interfere with the same. It may have a cascading
effect creating all kinds of problems for the
Government and authorities. Hence, the court should
exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in such
executive function vide Indian Drugs &
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs &
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 408. ……….
35. In our opinion fixing pay scales by courts by
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS
23applying the principle of equal pay for equal work
upsets the high constitutional principle of separation
of powers between the three organs of the State.
Realising this, this Court has in recent years avoided
.
applying the principle of equal pay for equal work,
unless there is complete and wholesale identity
between the two groups (and there too the matter
should be sent for examination by an Expert
Committee appointed by the Government instead of
the court itself granting higher pay).
36. It is well settled by the Supreme Court that only
of
because the nature of work is the same, irrespective of
educational qualification, mode of appointment,
experience and other relevant factors, the principle of
equal pay for equal work cannot apply vide Govt. of
rtW.B. v. Tarun K. Roy and Others (2004) 1 SCC 347.”
The same view was reiterated in Union Territory
Administration, Chandigarh and Others v. Manju
Mathur and Another (2011) 2 SCC 452; State of Haryana
and Others v. Charanjit Singh and Others (2006) 9 SCC
321 and in Hukum Chand Gupta v. Director General,
Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Others
(2012) 12 SCC 666.
16. Observing that granting parity in pay scales depends
upon the comparative evaluation of job and equation of
posts, in Steel Authority of India Limited and Others v.
Dibyendu Bhattacharya (2011) 11 SCC 122, this Court
held as under:-
“30. ……….. the law on the issue can be summarised to
the effect that parity of pay can be claimed by
invoking the provisions of Articles 14 and 39(d) of the
Constitution of India by establishing that the eligibility,
mode of selection/recruitment, nature and quality of
work and duties and effort, reliability, confidentiality,
dexterity, functional need and responsibilities and
status of both the posts are identical. The functions::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS
24may be the same but the skills and responsibilities
may be really and substantially different. The other
post may not require any higher qualification,
seniority or other like factors. Granting parity in pay.
scales depends upon the comparative evaluation of
job and equation of posts. The person claiming parity,
must plead necessary averments and prove that all
things are equal between the posts concerned. Such acomplex issue cannot be adjudicated by evaluating the
affidavits filed by the parties.”
……..
of
…….
……
Burden of proof on the person claiming parity of pay
scale:-
rt
20. Ordinarily, the scale of pay is fixed keeping in view the
several factors i.e.
(i) method of recruitment;
(ii) level at which recruitment is made;
(iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre;
(iv) minimum educational/technical qualifications
required;
(v) avenues of promotion;
(vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities; and
(vii) employer’s capacity to pay, etc.
21. It is well settled that for considering the equation of
posts and the issue of equivalence of posts, the following
factors had been held to be determinative:-
(i) The nature and duties of a post;
(ii) The responsibilities and powers exercised by the
officer holding a post, the extent of territorial or other
charge held or responsibilities discharged;
(iii) The minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for
recruitment to the post; and
(iv) The salary of the post (vide Union of India and
Another v. P.K. Roy and Others AIR 1968 SC 850).
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS
25
22. After referring to P.K. Roy‘s case, this Court, in SAIL,
held as under:-
“25. In State of Maharashtra and Another v.
Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni and Others (1981) 4 SCC.
130 and Vice Chancellor, L.N.Mithila University v.
Dayanand Jha (1986) 3 SCC 7, a similar view has been
reiterated observing that equal status and nature and
responsibilities of the duties attached to the two postshave to be taken into consideration for equivalence of
the post. Similar view has been reiterated in E.P.
Royappa v. State of T.N. and Another (1974) 4 SCC 3of
and Sub Inspector Rooplal and Another v. Lt.
Governor Through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Others
(2000) 1 SCC 644, wherein this Court following the earlier
judgment in P.K. Roy AIR 1968 SC 850 held that the
rt
salary of the post alone may not be a determining factor,
the other three criterion should also be fulfilled.”
23. The burden of proof in establishing parity in pay scales
and the nature of duties and responsibilities is on the
person claiming such right. The person claiming parity
must produce material before the court to prove that the
nature of duties and functions are similar and that they
are entitled to parity of pay scales. After referring to
number of judgments and observing that it is the duty of
an employee seeking parity of pay to prove and establish
that he had been discriminated against, this Court, in SAIL,
held as under:-
“22. It is the duty of an employee seeking parity of pay
under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India to prove
and establish that he had been discriminated against, as
the question of parity has to be decided on consideration
of various facts and statutory rules, etc. The doctrine of
“equal pay for equal work” as enshrined under Article
39(d) of the Constitution read with Article 14 thereof,
cannot be applied in a vacuum. The constitutional
scheme postulates equal pay for equal work for those::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS
26who are equally placed in all respects. The court must
consider the factors like the source and mode of
recruitment/appointment, the qualifications, the nature
of work, the value thereof, responsibilities, reliability,.
experience, confidentiality, functional need, etc. In other
words, the equality clause can be invoked in the matter
of pay scales only when there is wholesome/wholesale
identity between the holders of two posts. The burden ofestablishing right and parity in employment is only on
the person claiming such right. (Vide U.P. State Sugar
Corpn. Ltd. and Another v. Sant Raj Singh and Othersof
(2006) 9 SCC 82, Union of India and Another v.
Mahajabeen Akhtar (2008) 1 SCC 368, Union of India v.
Dineshan K.K (2008) 1 SCC 586, Union of India and
Others v. Hiranmoy Sen and Others (2008) 1 SCC 630,
rt
Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others (2008) 10 SCC
1, U.P. SEB and Another v. Aziz Ahmad (2009) 2 SCC 606
and State of M.P. and Others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai
(2009) 13 SCC 635)”
22. In the present case, as noted above, there are no
posts of Junior Lecturer Assistants in the Schools and the
petitioners, who are posted as Senior Laboratory Attendants,
have been discharging duties of the same nature, therefore,
the petitioners cannot be denied the pay scale of Rs.4400-
7000. The action on the part of the respondents-State to deny
the petitioners the pay scale of Junior Lecturer Assistant
though they are discharging similar duties as Junior Lab
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS
27Attendants is unreasonable, unjust and violative of Article 14
of the Constitution of India.
.
23. The respondents have not disputed that the
petitioners are performing the same duties as were
performed by Junior Lecturer Assistants, and thus the
petitioners are held entitled to the pay scale of Rs.4400-7000.
of
24. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion
rt
made hereinabove as well as the law propounded by theHon’ble Supreme Court, this Court finds merit in the present
petition and the same is accordingly allowed. The
respondents are directed to grant the pay scale of Rs.4400-
7000 to the petitioners w.e.f. 01.01.1996 on notional basis,
and actual monetary benefits be given to them three years
prior to the date of filing the present petition. Since the
petitioners are agitating the matter since long, the arrears
shall be paid to them, within a period of three months from
today. The petition is accordingly disposed of. However, there
shall be no order as to costs.
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS
28
25. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall
also stand disposed of.
.
17th March, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj )
(ankit) Judge
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2026 20:33:25 :::CIS