Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others vs Himachal Pradesh State Co-Operative … on 25 March, 2026
[ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
CWP No: 451 of 2019 alongwith
CWP Nos. 2531 of 2019, 2532
of 2019, 2533 of 2019.
Reserved on: 17.07.2025
.
Decided on: 25.03.2026.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. CWP No. 451 of 2019
State of Himachal Pradesh & others
...Petitioners
Versus
Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Department
Non-Gazetted Employees Association
of
__
....Respondent
2. CWP No. 2531 of 2019
State of Himachal Pradesh & others
...Petitioners
rt Versus
Jagdish Kumar & others
...Respondents
3. CWP No. 2532 of 2019
State of Himachal Pradesh & others.
...Petitioners
Versus
Hardayal Singh Thakur & others
...Respondent
4. CWP No. 2533 of 2019
State of Himachal Pradesh & others
...Petitioners
Versus
Gulzar Singh Parmar & others
...Respondent
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
-2- [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
For the petitioner-State: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate
General with Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta,
Additional Advocate General, Ms.
Swati Kraik, Deputy Advocate
General and Mr. Shalabh Thakur,
Assistant Advocate General in
all the petitions.
.
For the Respondents: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate,
Employees for respondent in CWP 451 of
2019.
Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate for
respondents No. 1, 3, 5, 7 to 9, 12,
20, 23 to 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 34,
of
36, 37, 39 to 45, 47 to 59, 61, 65,
66, 71, 74, 76 to 89, 91, 93, 94,
96, 99, 104, 107 and 109 in CWP
No. 2531 of 2019.
rt Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate,
for respondents No. 1, 3, 5 to 8,
10, 12 to 16, 18 to 20, 22, 23, 25
to 27, 30, 32 to 37, 39, 40, 45, 48
to 52, 54, 56 to 58, 61, 62 and 65
in CWP No. 2532 of 2019.
Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate,
for respondents No. 28, 38, 41, 44
and 46 in CWP No. 2532 of 2019.
Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate,
for respondents in CWP No. 2533
of 2019.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
The State of Himachal Pradesh, being the
petitioner, has come up before this Court praying
for the issuance of writ of certiorari, by quashing
the common order dated 13.04.2018 [Annexure P-1],
passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative
Tribunal (referred to as the “Tribunal” herein), in
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
-3- [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
Transferred Application(s), TA No. 2526 of 2015,
titled as Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Department
Non-Gazetted Employees Association versus State of
.
Himachal Pradesh and others and in TA No. 1530
of 2015, titled as Jagdish Kumar and others versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others and in TA
No. 1813 of 2015, titled as Hardyal Singh Thakur
of
and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and
others; directing the Petitioner(s)-State of Himachal
Pradesh
rt
to grant pay scale of Rs 1800-3200 to
the Respondents-Employees as Inspector Cooperative
Societies w.e.f. 01.01.1986 with all consequential
benefits within three months and the orders dated
09.08.2018 passed by Learned Tribunal in OA
No. 4726 of 2018, titled as Gulzar Singh Parmar
and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and
others, by directing the petitioners-State of Himachal
Pradesh to consider the case of the Respondents-
Original Applications for granting them the pay scale
of Rs 1800-3200 w.e.f 01.01.1986 in view of
the orders passed by Learned Tribunal in the case
of Jagdish Kumar (supra), subject to verification,
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
-4- [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
in case, the Original Applicants-Employees therein
were similarly situated and the aforesaid order has
attained finality.
.
2. Since the factual matrix as well as the
issue involved in aforesaid writ petitions is similar
therefore, with the consent of Learned Counsel(s)
all these matters are taken up for adjudication
of
together.
3. For appreciating the controversy herein,
rt
initial facts are taken from CWP No 2531 of 2019,
originating from TA No 1530 of 2015, in the case
Jagdish Kumar (supra) [referred to as Lead Case-I]
and the facts in continuation are taken from
CWP No 451 of 2019, originating from TA No 2526
of 2015, in HP State Co-operative Department Non-
Gazetted Employees Association and others (supra)
[referred to as Lead Case-II].
FACTUAL MATRIX IN CASE OF JAGDISH KUMAR
-LEAD CASE-I:
4. Jagdish Kumar and others, being the
Respondents Employees-Original Applicants in Lead
Case-I, had filed an Original Application i.e. O.A (D)
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
-5- [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
No. 437 of 2007 before Learned Tribunal and due
to its abolition, the aforesaid Original Application
stood transferred to this Court and after its
.
re-establishment, the same stood re-transferred to
the Tribunal as TA No 1530 of 2015, titled as
Jagdish Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh,
seeking the following reliefs:
of
(i). That the office order dated 30.08.2007,
AnnexureA-7, vide which the representation
dated 07.07.2007, Annexure A-6 has
rt been rejected, may kindly be quashed
and set-aside in the interest of justice.
(ii). That the respondents may kindly be
directed to remove the anomaly in the
pay scale of Inspector/Inspector Auditas has been done in the State of
Punjab.
(iii). That the respondents may kindly be
directed to release to the applicantsthe pay scale of Rs.1800-3200 in place
of Rs.1650-2950 w.e.f. 01.1.1986 orfrom any subsequent date from which
they are entitled for the same with all
consequential benefits.
(iv). That the respondent may also be directed
to re-fix the pay of the applicants after
removing the anomaly in the pay scale
and release the arrear with interest
@ 15% per annum.
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
-6- [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
(v). That as all the applicants have been
retired on superannuation, the respondents
may kindly be directed to re-fix their
pension and the arrear of the same
may kindly be released with interest.
@ 15% per annum.
4(i). Respondents Employees-Original Applicants-
had set up a case before the erstwhile Tribunal
that some of them were initially appointed as Sub-
of
Inspector {later redesignated as Inspector Gr-II} and
some were appointed as Clerks between the period
rt
from 1957 to 1972. They were promoted as Auditors
during the year 1979 in the Cooperation Department
of the Petitioner(s)-State and were given pay scale
of Rs 570-1080 w.e.f. 01.01.1978. While working
as Auditors, State Authorities issued a Notification
on 16.03.1983 [Annexure A-1 in TA file], redesignating
Auditors as Inspector [Audit] w.e.f. 16.03.1983 and
after redesignation, they were given the revised
pay scale of Rs 570-1080, which was revised to
Rs 1640-2925 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 by the Petitioner-
State.
4(ii). It is further averred that on the other
hand, in the State of Punjab, though the categories
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
-7- [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
of Junior Auditors, Assistants and the Accountant(s)
who were working in other departments were given
a lower pay scale than the category of Inspectors
.
but on the recommendations of Third Punjab
Pay Commission, the categories of Junior Auditors,
Assistants and Accountants were given a higher
revised pay scale of Rs 1800-3200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986.
of
Feeling aggrieved, the category of Inspector [Audit]
in the State of Punjab filed a CWP No. 14174 of
1995,
rt
Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and others vs
State of Punjab and others, praying for removing
the anomaly and for giving revised pay scale as
given to the category of Junior Auditors, Assistants
and Accountants in other departments in Punjab.
It is averred that the writ petition in the case of
Harbhajan Singh Bajwa (supra) was decided by
the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court on
26.02.2003 [Annexure A-4 in TA file], by directing
the State of Punjab to grant the parity to Inspector
[Audit] with that of Junior Auditors, Assistants,
Accountants in the State of Punjab w.e.f. 01.01.1986
i.e. Rs 1800-3200. It is averred that after passing
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
-8- [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
of judgement in case of Harbhajan Singh Bajwa
(supra), the Respondent-Employee-Original Applicant
No 1, Jagdish Kumar, submitted a representation
.
to the Petitioner no 1, on 07.07.2007 [Annexure A-6
in TA file], requesting to grant the same pay scale
of Rs 1800-3200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 as was granted
to the Inspectors [Audit] in the State of Punjab
of
in terms of the judgement passed in the case of
Harbhajan Singh Bajwa (supra), but the claim
of the
rt
Respondent Employees-Original Applicants
was rejected by the Petitioner(s)-State of Himachal
Pradesh on 30.08.2007 [Annexure A-7 in TA file] on
the ground that the judgement in the case of
Harbhajan Singh Bajwa (supra) was not binding
on the Petitioner(s)-State and the qualification and
other conditions of service of the posts of Inspector
[Audit] in the State of Himachal Pradesh are quite
different from the posts of Inspector (Audit) in State
of Punjab and therefore, they cannot be equated.
In the above backdrop, the Respondent
Employee-Original Applicant No 1, Jagdish Kumar
being the representationist and others, have assailed
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
-9- [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
the rejection order dated 30.08.2007 [Annexure A-7],
with the prayer to quash the rejection order and
for granting them the pay scale of Rs 1800-3200
.
w.e.f. 01.01.1986 on analogy on which such pay
scale has been granted to their counterparts in
the State of Punjab with all consequential benefits.
FACTUAL MATRIX IN HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE
COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT NON-GAZETTED
of
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION- LEAD CASE-II :
5. As a sequel to the factual matrix in
rt
Lead Case-I (supra), the facts in-continuation takenfrom Lead Case-II are detailed herein.
5(i). The Association of Respondent Employees
had initially filed CWP No 5863 of 2012 and on
establishment of Tribunal, this matter was transferred
to the Tribunal, as TA No 2526 of 2015, with the
original relief to the following effect:-
(i). That a writ of mandamus may very
kindly be issued by directing the
respondents to grant the pay scale
of Rs.1800-3200 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 in a
time bound manner to the aggrieved
members of the petitioners association
i.e. Inspector Cooperative Societies, on
the analogy of Punjab, with all
consequential benefits by removing the::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 10 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
anomaly of pay scale of Inspector/
Inspector Audit Cooperative Societies,
as has been done in the State of
Punjab.
(ii). That pay of the petitioners i.e. Inspector
.
Cooperative Societies may very kindly
be ordered to be re-fixed after removing
the anomaly in the pay scale alongwith
all consequential benefits.
5(ii). During the pendency of CWP No 5863 of
of
2012, later converted as TA No 2526 of 2015, the
Respondent Employees, amended the petition, in the
rt
following terms:
(i)a. That a writ of certiorari may very
kindly be issued and office order
dated 4.8.2012 [annexure P-19] wherebyrepresentation of the petitioner association
has been rejected, may be quashed
and set-aside.
(i). That a writ of mandamus may very
kindly be issued by directing the
respondents to grant the pay scale
of Rs.1800-3200 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 in atime bound manner to the aggrieved
members of the petitioners association
i.e. Inspector Cooperative Societies on
the analogy of Punjab with all
consequential benefits by removing the
anomaly of pay scale of Inspector/
Inspector Audit Cooperative Societies,
as has been done in the State of Punjab.
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 11 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
(ii). That pay of the Petitioners i.e. Inspector
Cooperative Societies may very kindly
be ordered to be re-fixed after removing
the anomaly in the pay scale along
with all consequential benefits.
.
5(iii). The Respondents Employees had set up
additional facts that the judgement passed by the
Learned Single Judge in the case of Harbhajan
of
Singh Bajwa (supra) was assailed by the State
of Punjab before the Division Bench in LPA No 376
rt
of 2003 and same was dismissed on 17.10.2008
and after the dismissal of LPA the State of Punjab
issued a Notification on 09.06.2010 [Annexure P-5
in TA file], implementing the judgment by granting
the pay scale of Rs 1800-3200 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 to
Inspectors at par with Junior Auditors, Assistants
and Accountants in State of Punjab. It is averred
that after issuance of implementation orders by
the State of Punjab on 09.06.2010, the Association
of the Respondent-Employees submitted representation
to the Petitioner-State on 18.10.2010 [Annexure P-5
in TA file] for giving them the pay scale of Rs
1800-3200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 as was given to their
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 12 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
counterpart-Inspectors in the State of Punjab. It
is further averred that even the Petitioner No 3-
Registrar Cooperative Societies requested the Principal
.
Secretary [Cooperation] on 19.10.2010 [Annexure P-7
in TA file] for giving the pay scale of Rs 1800-
3200 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 to Inspectors of Cooperation
Department in the State of Himachal Pradesh as
of
granted to the Inspectors in the State of Punjab.
It is submitted that even the Petitioner No 2-Registrar
Cooperative
rt Societies had sent recommendation to
Principal Secretary on 29.11.2011 [Annexure P-13]
and on 28.04.2012 [Annexure P-16 in TA file] for
giving the pay scale of Rs 1800-3200 to Inspector
[General/Audit] in the State of Himachal Pradesh
on the analogy on which this pay scales was given
in the State of Punjab with the prayer to give
revised pay scales thereof but the claim of the
Respondents-Employees herein, was rejected by the
State Government-petitioners herein, on 04.08.2012
[Annexure P-19 in TA file], on the ground, that
the conditions of service of employees of the State
of Himachal Pradesh are governed by the State
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 13 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
Rules notified under the provisio Article 309 of
the Constitution of India and the judgement passed
by the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana
.
in the case of Harbhajan Singh Bajwa is not
ipso-facto applicable to the employees of the State
of Himachal Pradesh and based on the mandate of
the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State
of
of Himachal Pradesh versus P.D. Attri and others
(1999) 3 SCC 217, the Finance department did
rt
not concur with the proposal on the ground that
even if the category of Inspector [Audit] in the
State of Punjab have been given the higher pay
scale of Rs 1800-3200 then also, the said pay scale
cannot be ipso-facto made applicable for Inspector
[Audit]/Inspector [General] in the State of Himachal
Pradesh in view of the fact that the Petitioner(s)-
State of Himachal Pradesh is neither bound to
follow the pay scales applicable in the State of
Punjab nor every change brought by the State of
Punjab for its employees is applicable in the State
of Himachal Pradesh.
In the above backdrop, the Association
::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
- 14 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
of Respondent Employees have prayed for quashing
the rejection order dated 04.08.2012 [Annexure P-19],
with the prayer for granting them the pay scale
.
of Rs 1800-3200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and the benefit
of subsequent revised pay scales on the analogy
on which these pay scale have been granted to
their counterparts in the State of Punjab with all
of
consequential benefits.
STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES BEFORE
TRIBUNAL CASE OF JAGDISH KUMAR, IN
rt
TA No 1530 OF 2015- IN LEAD CASE-I :
6. In Lead Case-I, the Petitioner(s)-State had
opposed the claim of the Respondents-Employees on
the ground that the judgement passed in the case
of Harbhajan Singh Bajwa [Annexure A-4 in TA
file] was not applicable and had not attained finality.
It was averred that the structure-nomenclature of
Cooperation-Department in the State of Punjab is
entirely different vis-à-vis the nomenclature-structure
of Cooperation-Department in the Petitioner(s)-State.
It was specifically averred that in the State of
Punjab Cooperation Department is controlled by
two heads of department i.e. Registrar, Cooperative
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 15 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
Societies for the general side and Chief Auditor
for the Audit side. It is averred that in the State
of Punjab the administrative control is governed by
.
two separate entities and both entities have separate
service rules for respective posts. It is averred that
the duties and responsibilities of both the categories
-employees on the general side and audit side were
of
entirely different. On the other hand, in the State
of Himachal Pradesh, the Cooperation Department
rt
was manned by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies
and the structure of Cooperation Department, the
service conditions, qualifications, promotional avenues,
duties and responsibilities in the State of Himachal
Pradesh regarding the post of Inspectors [Audit]/
Inspector [General] were entirely different vis-à-vis
structure-nomenclature in the State of Punjab and
even the equation-parity between of Inspector in
the State of Punjab vis-à-vis the State of Himachal
Pradesh was denied. In these circumstances, it was
prayed that the rejection order dated 30.08.2007
[Annexure A-7] may be upheld and the petition
may be dismissed.
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 16 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
STAND OF THE STATE AUTHORITIES BEFORE
TRIBUNAL IN HP COOPERATIVE NON GAZATTED
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-TA No 2526 OF 2015
-IN LEAD CASE-II :
7. In Lead Case-II, the Petitioner-State had
.
filed the Reply-Affidavit by reiterating the stand
taken in reply-affidavit filed in Lead Case-I in the
case of Jagdish Kumar [supra]. The reply-affidavit
indicates that the rejection order dated 04.08.2012
of
[Annexure P-19] was passed by the State Authorities
after examining the matter in entirety in view of
rt
the Service Rules including the Revised Pay Rules
as applicable to the Respondents Employees. It is
further averred that as per the mandate of 7th
Schedule and Entry No 41 in List-II, the State
of Himachal Pradesh is fully competent to regulate
the conditions of service for its employees and in
terms of judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of P D Attri (supra), the Respondents
-Employees have no right to claim the pay scales
granted to counterparts by other States or State
of Punjab, when, the issue regarding admissibility
of particular pay scale is to be tested by the
State Authorities after taking into account the
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 17 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
nomenclature, structure of department, service
conditions, requirements, qualifications, promotional
avenues, duties, job-profile, responsibilities, financial
.
payability and other factors. It is further averred
that unless and until the Petitioners-State adopts
and applies the pay scales notified by the other
States including the State of Punjab till then, an
of
employee has no right to seek enforcement of pay
scales given by another State. In this backdrop, the
rt
claim was opposed, with the prayer that rejection
order dated 04.08.2012 [Annexure P-19], may be
upheld and the petition may kindly be dismissed.
REBUTTAL BY WAY OF REJOINDER(S) AFFIDAVIT
BY RESPONDENTS- EMPLOYEES:
8. In both the Lead Cases, the Respondents
-Employees have filed respective rejoinders, reiterating
their stand that once State of Punjab has granted
the pay scales of Rs 1800-3200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986
therefore, same pay scale should have been adopted
and granted to the Respondent-Employees.
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.04.2018 PASSED
BY LEARNED TRIBUNAL:
9. Transferred Applications i.e. TA No. 1530
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 18 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
of 2015, titled as Jagdish Kumar versus State of
Himachal Pradesh and TA No. 1813 of 2015, titled
as Hardyal Singh Thakur versus State of Himachal
.
Pradesh and TA No 2526 of 2015, titled as HP
State Cooperative Department Non-Gazetted Employees
Association versus State of Himachal Pradesh and
others} were allowed by Learned Tribunal and the
of
rejection order dated 30.08.2007 [Annexure A-7] was
quashed and set-aside and the State Authorities-
rt
Petitioners herein, were directed to grant the pay
scale of Rs 1800-3200 to the Respondent Employees
-Original Applicants herein, w.e.f. 1.1.1986 with all
consequential benefits, in the following terms:
10. The Third Pay Commission in Punjab
recommended the pay scale of Rs 1500
-2640 for the post of Inspector Audit
Grade-I Cooperative. The government
revised the pay scales of all categories
of employees with effect from January1, 1986 and the Inspectors Audit
Grade-I were placed in the pay scale
of Rs 1640-2925 without any selection
grade whereas the Assistants/Accounts
in other departments were given the
pay scale of Rs 1800-3200. The Junior
Auditors, in the Finance Department
were put in the pay scale of Rs::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 19 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
1500-2640 and after 5 years, the pay
scale given was Rs 1800-3200. A table
to bring out the tentative pay scales,
as existed on January 1, 1968, January
1, 1978 and January 1, 1986 per.
recommendations of the 1st, IInd and
IIIrd Punjab Pay Commission, is
reproduced as under:-
Sr. Pay Scales allowed with effect from
No.
1.1.1968 1.1.1978 1.1.1996of
1 Inspector Audit Grade-I200-400 570-1080 1640-2925
350-500
rt 700-1200 Without any S.G.
S.G. Posts S.G. Posts2 Assistants/Accountants in other Departments
160-400 570-1080 1800-3200
3 Junior Auditors of Finance Department:
160-400 570-1080 1500-2640
[Rs.1800-3200 after
5 years service]
11. The post of Inspector Audit was a
higher post than that of Junior Auditor
and the pay scale of Inspector Auditwas brought at par with Junior Auditor.
The post of Inspector Audit is filled
up by promotion from amongst Junior
Auditors. The post was higher and the
applicants were entitled to higher pay
scale.
12. The Punjab Government took the
decision to give this further revised pay
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 20 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
scale to its Inspectors Audit on the
basis of decision of the Hon’ble High
Court of Punjab and Haryana and the
applicants are entitled to higher scale
on Punjab pattern.
.
16. The State Government while adopting
and implementing the pay scale of
Punjab pattern should ensure
reasonableness. The State Government
being principal employer should ensure
of
that the pay scales are fixed on the
basis of duties discharged by the
employees. The post of Inspector was
rt a higher post and that of Auditor
was a lower post. The decision of the
Government to grant lower pay scale
to the Inspectors Audit and Auditors
is patently irrational. The decision not
to grant pay scale of Rs.1800-3200
to the applicants had created anomaly.
17. Consequently, the transferred applications
are allowed, memo dated 30th August,
2007, Annexure A-7, is quashed and
the respondents are directed to grant
of pay scale of Rs 1800-3200 to the
applicants with effect from 01.01.1986
with all consequential benefits within
three months from the date of
production of certified copy of this
order.
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.08.2012 PASSED
BY LEARNED TRIBUNAL:
10. Likewise, the OA No. 4226 of 2018, Gulzar
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 21 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
Singh Parmar and others versus State of Himachal
Pradesh and others was decided by the Tribunal
on 09.08.2018, with the directions that the State
.
Authorities shall verify the facts and upon finding
the applicant to be similarly placed then to extend
benefit of orders dated 13.04.2018 passed by the
Tribunal in the case of Jagdish Kumar, in case,
of
the order had attained finality/ implemented along
with all consequential benefits.
rt
CHALLENGE TO THE IMPUGNED ORDERS
DATED 13.04.2018 AND 09.08.2018 PASSED
BY LEARNED TRIBUNAL :
11. Impugned common orders dated 13.04.2018
passed by the Learned State Administrative Tribunal
in TA No 2536 of 2015 was assailed by the
State Authorities in CWP No 451 of 2019 and the
order passed in TA No 1530 of 2015 was assailed
by the State Authorities in CWP No 2531 of 2019
and the order passed in TA No 1813 of 2015 was
assailed by the State Authorities in CWP No 2532
of 2019 and the Impugned Order dated 13.04.2018,
passed by Learned Tribunal was stayed by this
Court on 24.09.2019. Likewise, the Impugned Order
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 22 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
dated 09.08.2018, passed in OA No 4226 of 2018
has also been assailed by the State Authorities in
CWP No 2533 of 2019.
.
ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT(S) FILED BY STATE
AUTHORITIES IN CWP No 2531 OF 2019, IN
CASE OF JAGDISH KUMAR- LEAD CASE-I :
12. During the pendency of CWP No 2531 of
2019, in the case of Jagdish Kumar [Lead Case-I]
of
this Court passed an order on 13.07.2023, in thefollowing terms:-
rt Learned Counsel for both the parties
shall place on record material to showthat Sub Inspector/Sub Inspector (Audit)
in the State of Himachal Pradesh
has been drawing more pay than
Inspector (Audit) in the Co-operativeDepartment of Himachal Pradesh.
In compliance of orders passed by this
Court on 13.07.2023, the State Authorities filed
additional affidavit dated 21.09.2023 and operative
part thereof reads as under:-
2. That it is pertinent to submit here
that prior to 1996, Sub-Inspector of
the department of Cooperation having
pay scale of Rs 1350-2400 was a
feeder category post for the promotion
of Inspector/Inspector [Audit] in the::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 23 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925. However,
in the year 1992, the State of Punjab
merged the cadre of sub-Inspector
Cooperative Societies with the cadre of
Inspector Cooperative Societies and.
thereafter on the demand of the
Inspectors’ Association, the State of
H.P. Vide its notification dated
01.06.1996, copy of which is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure A-1
and its typed copy as A-1/T, also
of
merged the cadre of Sub-Inspector with
the Inspector Cooperative Societies.
rt After merger, there is only one cadre
of Inspector/Inspector [Audit] in the
State of H.P. and Punjab. It is also
submitted that the Sub-Inspectors of
the Cooperative Department being the
feeder category for the promotion
to the post of Inspector/Inspector
[Audit] were never getting higher
pay scales than the Inspector/
Inspector [Audit] of the department of
the deponent.
In addition, the additional affidavit states
in Para 3 that the Sub Inspectors of cooperation
department were in the pay scale of Rs 1350-2400
and the Sub Inspectors were a feeder category for
the promotional post of Inspector (Audit) in the
pay scale of Rs 1640-2925. It is averred that in
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 24 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
1992, State of Punjab issued a notification merging
category of Sub Inspectors with that of Inspectors
(Audit) and based on the demand of the Inspectors
.
Association, the State of Himachal Pradesh issued
a Notification on 01.06.1996, (Annexure A-1) merging
the Sub Inspectors with that Inspector Cooperative
Societies. The Additional Affidavit further stated that
of
after merger on 01.09.1996, there existed only one
cadre of Inspector/Inspectors (Audit) in the State
rt
of Himachal Pradesh. The Additional Affidavit states
that Sub-Inspectors in Himachal Pradesh were in
feeder category for promotion to posts of Inspectors
/Inspector (Audit) and Sub-Inspectors were never
getting higher pay scales than that of Inspectors
/Inspector (Audit) in the State of Himachal Pradesh.
The Additional Affidavit reveals the revised pay sales
granted to Inspectors of Cooperative department and
the revised pay scales given to the Auditors and
Assistants/Accountants working in other departments
in the State. The Additional Affidavit indicates that
as per the Himachal Pradesh Revised Pay issued
on 31.03.1980 (Annexure A-2), Sub-Inspectors were
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 25 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
given the revised pay scale of Rs 450-800 whereas
the Auditors and Inspectors (Gen) were given the
revised pay scale of Rs 570-1080 w.e.f. 01.01.1978.
.
It is averred that the State Government issued a
Notification on 16.03.1983, {Annexure P-2, in TA
No 2526 of 2015}, designating the category of the
Auditors as Inspector (Audit). It is averred that State
of
Authorities issued another notification on 09.05.1991
(Annexure A-3/T) whereby, pay scale of Auditors
rt
/Inspectors (Audit) and the Inspector (Gen side) was
revised from Rs 570-1080 to Rs 1640-2925 w.e.f.
01.01.1986. The Additional Affidavit further stated
that the State Govt issued a Notification 01.06.1996
(Annexure A-1), merging the two cadres of Sub-
Inspectors (redesignated as Inspectors Gr-II} with
the cadre of Inspector (General and Audit) w.e.f.
01.07.1995 and by giving them a unified/common
revised pay scale of Rs 1650-2925. It was averred
after merger on 01.01.1996 w.e.f. 01.07.1995, the
Sub-Inspectors (renamed as Inspector Gr-II) were to
rank as junior to Inspector (Gen/Audit) and their
pay was to be fixed in terms of Instruction No 1
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 26 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
below FR 22. The Additional Affidavit reveals that
in terms of Himachal Pradesh Revised Pay Rules
issued on 20.01.1998 (Annexure A-4), pay scale of
.
Inspectors was revised from Rs 1650-2925 to Rs
5480-8925 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and this pay scale was
further revised as per Himachal Pradesh Revised Pay
Rules issued on 26.08.2009 (Annexure A-5) to Rs
of
10300-34800+3600 GP w.e.f 01.01.2006 and revised
scale thereafter. Additional affidavit further indicated
rt
that on the other hand, the category of the Junior
Auditor in Local Audit department (different from
cooperation department) in terms of the Himachal
Pradesh Revised Pay Rules issued in September
1991 (Annexure A-8) and the categories of Assistants
and Accountants in other departments of State of
Himachal Pradesh (redesignated as Senior Assistants)
were given revised pay scale of Rs 1800-3200 as
per the Himachal Pradesh Revised Pay Rules issued
on 23.07.1990 (Annexure A-10).
13. Based on the factual matrix and the
pleadings in Lead Cases, the following question arises
for determination:-
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 27 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
(i). Whether the State of Himachal Pradesh
is bound to adopt and grant the
same pay scales to the Respondent-
Employees which are granted by
another State including the State of
.
Punjab ?
(ii). Whether the grant of higher pay scale
to Inspectors working in Cooperation
department in State of Punjab by
resorting to relative assessment of pay
of
scales granted to Auditors, Assistants
and Accountants in other departments
in the State of Punjab could be
rt made the basis for inferring anomaly
in case of Respondent-Employees in the
State of Himachal Pradesh ?
14. Heard, Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General
with Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General,
Ms. Swati Draik, Deputy Advocate General and Mr.
Shalabh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General for the
petitioner-State of Himachal Pradesh and Ms. Shreya
Chauhan and Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocates, for
Respondents-Employees and have also gone through
the records.
CHALLENGE TO IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED
13.04.2018 AND 09.08.2018 PASSED LEARNED
BY TRIBUNAL:
15. Petitioner-State of Himachal Pradesh has
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 28 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
assailed the Impugned Order passed by Tribunal,
on the ground, firstly, the Impugned Order directing
the Petitioner-State to grant the revised pay scales
.
to the Respondent Employees which were granted
to Inspectors in the State of Punjab is erroneous
in law; and secondly, the Impugned Order granting
pay scales in view of “mere similarity in designation
of
of Inspectors” but by “ignoring other relevant factors”
amongst employees governed by different set of
rt
rules, who belonged to different cadres in differentStates was perverse; and thirdly, Impugned Order
inferring parity or equation in pay scale as given
in the State of Punjab, in absence of any material
on record to establish equation-parity and without
there being any express conferment of parity-equation
vitiates the Impugned order; and fourthly, Impugned
Order passed by Learned Tribunal amounts to
rewriting the Revised Pay Norms dehors the State
Recruitment and Promotion Rules as well as the
State Revised Pay Rules notified in case of
Inspectors (Audit and General) in State of Himachal
Pradesh; and lastly, the claim of the Respondent
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 29 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
Employees without laying a challenge to the State
Recruitment and Promotion Rules as well as the
State Revised Pay Rules was impermissible.
.
ANALYSIS OF CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED
ADVOCATE GENERAL:
16. First contention of Learned Advocate General
is that the Impugned Order(s) passed by Learned
Tribunal directing the Petitioner(s)-State to grant the
of
revised pay scales to the Respondent Employees whichwere granted to the Inspectors in the State of Punjab
rt
is erroneous in law, as the Petitioner-State is notbound to adopt or follow the pay scales notified by
another State or by the State of Punjab.
MANDATE OF LAW- ONE STATE IS NOT
BOUND TO FOLLOW PAY SCALES PRESCRIBED
BY ANOTHER STATE :
16(i). While adjudicating a similar issue as to
whether the State of Himachal Pradesh is bound
to grant pay scales which have been granted to
employees by the State of Punjab was negated with
the findings that there is no constitutional or legal
provision nor any law commands that the State
of Himachal Pradesh shall follow the pay scales
which exist in the State of Punjab. The Rules and
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 30 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
Regulations which are applicable to the employees
of the State of Punjab or other State are neither
ipso facto binding nor can a mandate be issued
.
by directing the State of Himachal Pradesh to follow
the Punjab Pay Rules and Regulations automatically
unless, the Punjab Pay Rules are expressly adopted
by the State of Himachal Pradesh, which has not
of
been done in the instant case. Deprecating such aclaim, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in
rt
State of Himachal Pradesh versus P D Attri andothers, (1999) 3 SCC 217, in the following terms:-
5. The case of the respondents is not
based on any Constitutional or any otherlegal provisions when they claim parity
with the posts similarly designated in
the Punjab & Haryana High Court andtheir pay-scales from the same date.
They do not allege any violation of
any Constitutional provision or any
other provision of law. They say it is
so because of “accepted policy and common
practice” which according to them are
undisputed. We do not think we can
import such vague principles while
interpreting the provisions of law. India
is a union of States. Each State has
its own individualistic way of governance
under the Constitution. One State is
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 31 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
not bound to follow the rules and
regulations applicable to the employees
of the other State or if it had adopted
the same rules and regulations, it is
not bound to follow every change
.
brought in the rules and regulations
in the other State. The question then
arises before us is if the State
of Himachal Pradesh has to follow
every change brought in the States
of Punjab & Haryana in regard to
of
the rules and regulations applicable to
the employees in the States of Punjab
rt & Haryana. The answer has to be in
negative. No argument is needed for
that as anyone having basic knowledge
of the Constitution would not argue
otherwise. True, the State as per “policy
and practice” had been adopting the
same pay-scales for the employees of
the High Court as sanctioned from time
to time for the employees of the Punjab
& Haryana High Court and it may
even now follow to grant pay-scales
but is certainly not bound to follow.
No law commands it to do so.
6. The State of Punjab was reorganised
into States of Punjab, Haryana and
Himachal Pradesh, to begin with, was
a Union Territory and was given the
status of full statehood in 1970. Since
employees of the composite States of
Punjab were taken in various Departments
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 32 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
of the State of Himachal Pradesh in
order to safeguard the seniority, pay-
scales etc., the State of Himachal Pradesh
followed the Punjab pattern of pay-
scales. After attaining the status of full
.
statehood, High Court of Himachal Pradesh
formulated its own rules and regulations
for its employees. It adopted the pattern
of Punjab & Haryana High Court rules
of their employees. When Punjab &
Haryana High Court gave effect to certain
of
portion of its Rules from 25.9.1985 by
notification dated 23.1.1986 as a result
of which redesignation of the posts of
rt
Senior Translators and Junior Translators
were equated to the posts in Punjab
Civil Secretariat, the Himachal Pradesh
High Court similar effect was given to
in its rules for its employees. When the
Punjab & Haryana High Court gave
effect to those rules from 23.1.1975, the
State Government did not agree to the
recommendations of the Chief Justice
of the Himachal Pradesh High Court to
follow the same suit. It is true that till
now, Himachal Pradesh High Court has
been following the rules applicable to
the employees of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court and it may go on following
those rules as may be amended by the
Punjab & Haryana High Court from
time to time, but certainly it is not
bound to so follow. No law commands
the State Government to follow the
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 33 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
rules applicable to the employees of
the Punjab & Haryana High Court to
the employees of the Himachal Pradesh
High Court. That being the position,
it is not necessary for us to examine
.
different qualifications for appointment
to the posts of Senior Translators and
Junior Translators that may exist between
Punjab & Haryana High Court and the
Himachal Pradesh High Court and also
as to the mode of their recruitment
of
/placement in the service. Moreover, any
change in the pay-scales following
rt Punjab & Haryana High Court can
set in motion chain reaction for other
employees which may give rise to
multiplicity of litigation among “various
categories of employees. Rules of each
High Court have to be examined
independently. There cannot be any such
law that Himachal Pradesh High Court
has to suo motu follow the same
rules as applicable to the employees
working in the Punjab & Haryana
High Court.
16(i-a).
While adjudicating a similar proposition,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary,
Mahatma Gandhi Mission and another versus
Bhartiya Kamgar Sena and others, (2017) 4 SCC
449, has outlined that there is no authority to
compel the States to adopt the pay structures
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 34 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
which are applicable in Government of India, in the
following terms:
60. The Sixth Pay Commission appointed by
the Government of India is only a.
body entrusted with the job of making
an assessment of the need to revise the
pay structure of the employees of the
Government of India and to suggest
appropriate measures for revision of the
pay structure. The recommendations of
of
the pay commission are not binding
on the Government of India, much less
rt any other body. They are only meant
for administrative guidance of the
Government of India. The Government
of India may accept or reject the
recommendations either fully or partly,
though it has never happened that the
recommendations of the pay commission
are completely rejected by the Government
so far.
61. Once the Government of India
accepted the recommendations of the
pay commission and issued orders
signifying its acceptance, it became the
decision of the Government of India.
That decision of the Government of
India created a right in favour of
its employees to receive pay in terms
of the recommendations of the Sixth
Pay Commission and the Government of
India is obliged to pay.
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 35 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
62. The fact that the Government of India
accepted the recommendations of the
Sixth Pay Commission (for that matter
any pay commission) does not either
oblige the States to follow the pattern
.
of the revised pay structure adopted
by the Government of India or
create any right in favour of the employees
of the State or other bodies falling
within the legislative authority of the
State. The Government of India has no
of
authority either under the Constitution
or under any law to compel the States
rt or their instrumentalities to adopt
the pay structure applicable to the
employees of the Government of India.
16(i-b). While examining the issue as to whether
communications issued by the Central Government
governing conditions of service, including pay etc
were binding on the State of Uttarakhand with
respect to State Universities, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Uttarakhand versus
Sudhir Budakoti and others, (2022) 13 SCC 256,
has mandated that the State of Uttarakhand was
not bound by any direction issued by the Central
Government, unless such a direction was decided
to be accepted and adopted by the State concerned,
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 36 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
in following terms:
20. We have recorded the facts in the
preceding paragraphs. Law has become
quite settled that the Appellant is not.
bound by any direction issued by the
Central Government which would at
worst be mandatory to the Central
Universities and the Central Government
Colleges receiving funds. Thus, any
such decision would obviously be
of
directory to State Government Colleges
and Universities, being in the nature
of a mere recommendation.
rt 21. The aforesaid position has been clarified
by the decision of this Court in
Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj, (2015)
6 SCC 363:
“62.2. The UGC Regulations being
passed by both the Houses of
Parliament, though a subordinate
legislation has binding effect on the
universities to which it applies.
62.3. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are
mandatory to teachers and other
academic staff in all the Central
universities and colleges thereunderand the institutions deemed to be
universities whose maintenance
expenditure is met by UGC.
62.4. The UGC Regulations, 2010
are directory for the universities,
colleges and other higher educational
institutions under the purview of
the State legislation as the matter
has been left to the State Government::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 37 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
to adopt and implement the Scheme.
Thus, the UGC Regulations, 2010
are partly mandatory and is partly
directory.”
22. The High Court of Uttarakhand in our
.
opinion has completely misconstrued the
facts. The Appellant nowhere has made
a decision to accept and adopt the
circular of the Central Government
pertaining to the Registrars working
in the Universities coming under its
of
purview. In the absence of any legal
right with the corresponding duty,
such a relief can never be asked
rt for, particularly when there are clear
and specific rules provided for the
pay scale of Registrars by the Appellant
itself. The decision of the Appellant
qua the Lecturers who form a distinct
group as against the Respondent No. 1
who holds a higher position in the
administration has been lost sight of.
Merely because Respondent No. 1 was
made to fill the gap by temporarily
taking up the job of a Lecturer, he
would never become one and so also
a Lecturer, who might undertake the
job of a Registrar. This is nothing but
an administrative convenience borne out
of a contingency. When the classification
is distinct and clear having adequate
rationale with due relation to the objective,
there is no reason to hold otherwise
by treating a Registrar at par with the
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 38 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
Lecturers. One is meant for administration
and the other teaching. The High Court
has also not considered the financial
implications as any decision would not
rest with Respondent No 1 alone, but
.
the entirety of the administrative staff.
MANDATE OF THIS COURT THAT STATE
OF HIMACHAL PRADESH IS NOT BOUND TO
FOLLOW PUNJAB PAY SCALES MANDATORILY :
16(i-c). While examining the claim of a Sub-Fire
of
Officer in the State of Himachal Pradesh, who wasclaiming parity in pay scale with his counterpart
rt
in the State of Punjab, the claim was negated bythis Court in CWP No 8425 of 2010 in Balvinder
Singh Mahal versus State of Himachal Pradesh
and others dated 16.10.2014, after relying on the
principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in case of P. D. Attri (supra), in the following terms:
7. In view of the exposition of law in
P.D. Attri‘s case (supra), it has to beseen as to whether the petitioner has
been able to establish violation of
any constitutional or any other legal
provision when he has laid claim
based upon parity with the posts with
similarly situate persons in the State
of Punjab and claiming pay scales
granted in the said State.
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 39 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
12. Tested on the touchstone of the aforenoted
broad guidelines and taking into account
the exposition of law in Tilak Raj’s
case (supra), it can conveniently be
concluded that the petitioner has failed.
to establish on record his entitlement
to the pay scale as being paid to
his counterparts in Punjab and the
petitioner is not otherwise entitled to
claim the same merely on the basis
of Punjab pattern in view of judgment
of
in P.D. Attri‘s case (supra).
16(i-d). While dealing with the claim of Senior
rt
Lecturer in Department of Ayurveda for higher grade
pay by seeking parity with counter parts in the
State of Punjab, was negated by another Division
Bench of this Court in CWP No 2710 of 2018, titled
as State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus
Dr. Suman Sharma, decided on 22.09.2020, in the
following terms:
4(i). ……Therefore, Grade Pay of Rs 6600/-
cannot be released to the respondent
merely on the ground that Punjab
Government grants this grade pay to
its Senior Lecturer/Assistant Professor /
Reader. Punjab pattern of pay scales
will not be ipso facto binding upon
the petitioner-State.
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
- 40 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
16(i-e). While dealing with the claim of Senior
Laboratory Technicians in State of Himachal Pradesh,
who were claiming parity in pay scale with the
.
Laboratory Technicians in the health department
in the State of Punjab, this Court has held in
CWPOA No. 673 of 2019, R.P. Sood and others
versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others,
of
that the State of Himachal is not bound to followpay scales granted by the Rules or Regulations or
Notifications
rt issued in the State of Punjab andeven if in the past, the State of Himachal had
followed the Punjab Pay Scales, then also, the
State of Himachal is not bound to follow every
change automatically, unless and until the State of
Himachal issues its own orders adopting the same
and every State has its own legal entity, having
own individualistic way of governance and no law
commands and mandates the State of Himachal
to automatically follow the pay scales of another
State, including the State of Punjab, in the following
terms:
17. Under Entry No. 41 of Schedule 7
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 41 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
of the Constitution of India, State
Government has exclusive jurisdiction
on State Public Services. The pay scales
and service conditions prescribed under
Article 309 are alone applicable in.
the State. Thus, pay scales of Punjab
cannot be applied until the State
Government issues its own orders.
18. Main argument/submission raised on
behalf of the petitioners that the State
of Himachal Pradesh is bound to follow
of
pay pattern fixed by Punjab, already
stands negated/rejected by Hon’ble
rt Apex Court in the celebrated case
titled State of Himachal Pradesh v.
P.D. Attri, (1999) 3 SCC 317, wherein
it has been categorically held that the
State is not bound to follow the
rules and regulations applicable to
the employees of other State and
even if it has been following the
same, it is not bound to follow every
change made by the other State.
20. In view of the exposition of law in
P.D. Attri supra, it is to be seen as to
whether the petitioners have been able
to establish violation of constitutional
or other legal provisions when they
lay their claim based upon parity qua
a post or similarly situate post in
Punjab or pay scale granted in the
other State.
27. Division Bench of this Court in a bunch
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 42 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
of cases had an occasion to deal with
the question, which has fallen for
determination in the cases at hand. Vide
order dated 22.9.2020, Division Bench
of this Court in case titled State of
.
Himachal Pradesh & others v. Dr. Suman
Sharma, CWP No. 2710 of 2018 and
other connected matters, decided on
22.9.2020, while placing reliance upon
various judgments rendered by Hon’ble
Apex Court, has held that the State
of
of Himachal Pradesh is not bound
to follow the Rules and Regulations
rt as applicable to the employees of
Punjab or other States, even if it
has adopted some rules and regulations,
it is not bound to follow every change
brought in such rules and regulations
in other State.
29. However, having carefully perused the
minutes of meeting, Annexure R-4, dated
16.4.2013, this court finds no force in
the submissions made by learned senior
counsel for the petitioners, because, if
the minutes of meeting of the Expert
Committee are read in their entirety,
they clearly reveal that the State of
Himachal Pradesh nowhere granted
benefit of pay revision to the category
of petitioners with effect from 1.5.2013
on the basis of judgment rendered by
High Court of Punjab and Haryana,
rather, it after having taken note of detailed
note presented to it, observed that
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 43 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
though always there has been parity
in the pay scales given to the Senior
Laboratory Technician in Health and
Family Welfare Department with that
of Senior Laboratory Technician in
.
Punjab, prior to judgment passed by
High Court of Punjab and Haryana
but State of Himachal Pradesh is not
bound to follow Punjab pay scales
revised/granted from back dates, on
the basis of judgment passed by High
of
Court of Punjab and Haryana. Expert
Committee has specifically recorded in
rt its finding that the parity/pay scales
granted to Senior Laboratory Technician
cannot be accepted in its totality and
there is no cadre of Chief Laboratory
Technician in the Health Department in
Punjab.
35. Since the State of Himachal Pradesh
is not bound to follow each and
every change brought in the rules and
regulations in other States, its action
inasmuch as granting grade pay of Rs
4800/- is a measure personnel to them
with effect from 1.5.2013, cannot be
said to be bad in law.
39. In view of the various judgments taken
note herein above, the State of Himachal
Pradesh is not bound to follow every
change brought about in the rules and
regulations of the State of Punjab, as
such, petitioners cannot seek a direction
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 44 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
from this Court to extend the benefit
of revision of pay scales, which otherwise
has been granted by the respondents
with effect from 1.5.2013, from back date
i.e. 1.1.1978.
.
16(i-f). Negating the plea of Veterinary and Animal
Sciences Teachers’ Association, who were serving as
Assistant Professor in Agricultural University and
were claiming benefit of two advance increments
of
as granted to the faculty in Agricultural University
in the State of Punjab, the Division Bench of this
rt
Court in CWP No. 3344 of 2020, titled as State
of Himachal Pradesh through Principal Secretary
[Agriculture] versus Veterinary & Animal Sciences
Teachers’ Association and another, decided on
02.04.2024, held as under:
4(iv). …Merely because Agricultural
Universities in the State of Punjab
have released two advance incrementsto its faculty possessing M.V. Sc.
degree would not mean that respondent
State is obligated to do the same.
What happens in the State of Punjab in
respect of release of pay-scales/incentives
is not to be automatically implemented
by the State of Himachal Pradesh. The
respondents State has to examine the::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 45 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
matter of release of pay-scale /incentives
in view of its own staffing pattern,
Recruitment & Promotion Rules, method
of recruitment, educational qualifications,
geographical/ traditional /territorial conditions.
and financial resources etc. The Government
of Himachal Pradesh is not legally
bound to follow the Punjab pay-scalepattern.
In this petition, we are not even
of
concerned with release of revised pay-
scale, but the admissibility of two
non-compounded advance increments as
incentive to the members of respondent
rt No. 1 association in lieu of their M.V.Sc. Degree. As noticed earlier, neither
there is any material on record to
suggest that the State or respondent
No. 2 are bound to release the incrementsthat are released by the ICAR nor any
submission on this point was advancedby learned Senior Counsel for respondent
No1 Respondent No 1’s stand aloneground of State of Himachal Pradesh
/respondent No 2 University beingmandatorily bound to follow the State
of Punjab pattern of pay-scales/
incentives, is untenable.
16(i-g). Plea of Workshop Instructors, who were
promoted as Foreman Instructors in pay scale of
Rs 10300-34800 with GP 4600 w.e.f 01.08.2016 in
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 46 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
Technical Education Department in the State of
Himachal Pradesh for giving pay scale of Rs 15600
-39100 with GP 5400 as given to the counterparts
.
in the State of Punjab, was turned down by this
Court, in CWPOA No 6543 of 2019, titled as
Attar Singh and others versus State of Himachal
Pradesh, decided on 20.05.2022, in the following
of
terms:-
5. Petitioners are claiming pay scale of
rt 15600- 39100+ 5400 Grade Pay for
themselves as Foreman Instructors on
the basis of same scale being drawnby their counter parts in State of
Punjab. It is no more res integra that
the Government of Himachal Pradeshis not bound to follow the pay scales
granted by the State of Punjab to its
employees. In State of Himachal vs.P.D. Attri and others, (1999)3 SCC 217,
the Hon’ble Apex Court ….”
13. Following the aforesaid mandate, the
Division Bench of this Court in State
of Himachal Pradesh and Others vs.
Dr. Suman Sharma, 2020 (4) Shim.
LC 2031 ….”
15. Thus, the qualification for the post of
Foreman Instructor in Punjab, in the
case of direct recruitment is possession
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 47 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
of First Class Bachelor Degree or Master
degree and by way of promotion,
experience of 10 years as regular
Workshop Instructor is required. Petitioners
neither hold the qualification as required
.
for the post of Foreman Instructor
through direct recruitment in State of
Punjab nor have the requisite experience
of 10 years before their promotion.
Further, even the essential qualification
prescribed for the post of Workshop
of
Instructors in the State of Himachal
Pradesh and State of Punjab are not
rt identical.
16(i-h). While negating the claim of Technicians
(Junior Technicians, Technician Gr-II and Technician
Gr-I working in the Irrigation and Public Health
Department-now JSV Department, in the State of
Himachal Pradesh for the re-revised pay scale with
higher initial start as granted to Technician’s in
the State of Punjab from 01.10.2012} the Division
Bench of this Court in CWP No 372 of 2017, titled
as State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus
Narinder Singh and others, decided on 24.06.2025,
has reiterated that the State of Himachal Pradesh
is neither bound to adopt nor to follow the pay
scales prescribed by another State, including the
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 48 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
State of Punjab for its employees. There is no
law which commands the State of Himachal Pradesh
either to adopt or to follow the pay scales granted
.
by the State of Punjab for its employees. By virtue
of Entry No 41, in State List, under the Seventh
Schedule, the State of Himachal Pradesh is competent
to regulate conditions of service, including grant
of
of pay scales and the revised pay scales for its
employees. Even if, in the past, the State of Himachal
rt
Pradesh had adopted and followed the pay scales
of another State (Punjab State) then also, the State
of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow every
change or amendment which is carried out or is
brought by another State. Unless and until the
State of Himachal Pradesh by way of a conscious
policy decision expressly adopts pay scales granted
to its employees by another State, including State
of Punjab, till then, an employee has neither any
vested right nor any legally enforceable claim for
same pay scales which were granted by the State
of Punjab to its employees. Even within the same
employer, an anomaly cannot be inferred by mere
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 49 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
similarity in designation. The onus to establish parity
or equation lies on person claiming such benefits
and in the absence of any cogent and convincing
.
material {based on the State Service Rules and the
State Revised Pay Rules}, such a plea cannot be
accepted on the mere plea that the persons with
same designation have been granted a particular
of
pay scale in another State, including the State of
Punjab.
rtBased on the principles outlined by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of P. D. Attri,
Secretary, Mahatma Gandhi Mission and Sudhir
Budakoti (supra) and the judgements passed by
this Court, in Balvinder Singh Mahal, Dr. Suman
Sharma, R.P. Sood, Veterinary & Animal Sciences
Teachers Assn, Attar Singh and in case of Narinder
Singh (supra), this Court holds that the Impugned
Order dated 13.04.2018 [Annexure P-1] passed by
Learned State Administrative Tribunal directing the
Petitioner-State Authorities to grant the pay scale
of Rs 1800-3200 to the Respondents-Employees at
par with their counterparts in State of Punjab w.e.f.
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
- 50 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
01.01.1986 is erroneous in law, for the reason,
Firstly, as per Entry No 41 in State List under
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, the
.
State Government has exclusive jurisdiction over
the State Public Services; and secondly, every State,
including the State of Himachal Pradesh is
separate legal entity, having its own independent
of
and individualistic way of governance, including
mode and manner of prescribing the conditions of
rt
service including pay scales and revised pay scales
for the employees of state public services; and
thirdly, there is neither any constitutional mandate
nor any law which commands the State of Himachal
Pradesh to adopt or follow the pay scales which
exist or have been prescribed for its employees
by the State of Punjab ; and fourthly, even the
Rules, Regulations, Norms notified by another State
or the State of Punjab for its employees are not
ipso-facto binding on employees in the State of
Himachal Pradesh; and fifthly, neither any Court
nor any Tribunal can mandate the Petitioner-State
of Himachal Pradesh to adopt, follow and apply
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 51 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
the conditions of service, including the pay scales
or revised pay scales prescribed by virtue of the
rules, regulations, notifications issued by another
.
State or the State of Punjab for its employees ;
and sixthly, the Impugned Order passed by the
Tribunal cannot sustain, when, the Petitioner-State,
by way of a policy decision has not “expressly
of
adopted” either the Service Rules of the Revised
Pay Rules or regulations or notifications prescribing
rt
conditions of service including admissibility of pay
scale or revised pay scales given to Inspector in
the State of Punjab; and seventhly, even if, in
the past, the Petitioner-State of Himachal Pradesh
had expressly adopted, followed and applied the
rules, regulations, instructions or norms governing
pay scales or revised pay scales, then also, the
Respondent-Employees do not any fundamental or
legal right to seek its enforcement for all times
to come, in perpetuity ; and eighthly, even in case
of an express adoption in the past, the intent of
the order of adoption has to be tested/examined
in facts of each case, as to whether such adoption
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 52 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
is perpetual adoption or is event-centric adoption;
and ninthly, in present batch of cases, nothing
has been placed on record by Respondent Employees
.
to assert and establish that the Petitioner-State
had “consciously and expressly adopted” the pay
scales or revised pay scales as given by the State
of Punjab to the Inspectors (Audit/General); and
of
tenthly, a perusal of the Additional Affidavit dated
21.09.2023 filed by the Petitioner-State reveals that
rt
by virtue of its legislative competency, the State of
Himachal Pradesh had notified the State Service
Rules {recruitment and Promotion Rules} and the
State Revised Pay Rules i.e. the Himachal Pradesh
Revised Pay Rules for its employees, including the
Sub Inspectors (redesignated as Inspector Gr-II)
by revising the pay scale of Sub-Inspectors/Inspector
Grade-II) to Rs 450-800 whereas the category of
Auditors and category of Inspectors (Gen) were given
revised pay of Rs 570-1080 w.e.f. 01.01.1978
as per the State Revised Pay Rules on 31.03.1980
(Annexure A-2). The State Government issued a
Notification on 16.03.1983, {Annexure P-2, in TA No
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 53 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
2526 of 2015}, redesignating Auditors as Inspectors
(Audit). After redesignation of Auditors as Inspector
(Audit), the State Government notified the Revised
.
Pay Rules on 09.05.1991 (Annexure A-3/T), revising
the pay scale of the Auditors/Inspector (Audit) and
the category of Inspector (General side) from
Rs 570-1080 to Rs 1640-2925 w.e.f. 01.01.1986.
of
The State Govt issued a Notification on 01.06.1996
(Annexure A-1), merging cadres of Sub-Inspectors
rt
(redesignated as Inspectors Gr-II} with the cadre
of Inspector (General and Audit) w.e.f. 01.07.1995
and by giving them a unified revised pay scale
of Rs 1650-2925. The Petitioner State notified the
Revised Pay Rules on 20.01.1998 (Annexure A-4),
revising the pay scale of the Inspectors from Rs
1650-2925 to Rs 5480-8925 w.e.f. 01.01.1996, which
was further revised on 26.08.2009 (Annexure A-5)
to Rs 10300-34800+3600 GP w.e.f 01.01.2006
and the revised scale notified thereafter.
In facts of present batch of cases, the
Respondent-Employees, being Inspectors were granted
the pay scales and the revised pay scales in terms
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 54 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
of the State Revised Pay Rules notified under the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
By virtue of the State Service Rules and the State
.
Revised Pay Rules, the Respondent-Employees, being
Inspectors were granted the revised pay scale of
Rs 1640-2925 w.e.f 01.01.1986 {which after merger
on 01.06.1996 was revised to Rs 1650-2925 w.e.f.
of
01.07.1995} and these Revised Pay Rules occupied
the field from 01.01.1986. The Impugned Order dated
rt
13.04.2018 {Annexure P-1} passed by the Learned
Tribunal mandating the Petitioner-State of Himachal
Pradesh to grant the pay scales of Rs 1800-3200
w.e.f. 01.01.1986 on Punjab pattern in derogation
of State Revised Pay Rules notified by the State of
Himachal Pradesh coupled with the fact that the
State Revised Pay Rules which occupied the field
at relevant time have not been assailed by the
Respondent Employees; and nothing has been placed
on record by the Respondent-Employees to establish
that the State of Himachal Pradesh was mandatorily
bound to adopt or follow the Revised Pay Rules
or norms which were notified by another State or
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 55 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
by the State of Punjab. Moreover, in terms of the
mandate of Law declared by the Honble Supreme
Court and by this Court, once no law commands
.
the State of Himachal Pradesh to adopt and to
follow the pay scales prescribed/given by the State
of Punjab therefore, the Impugned Order passed by
Learned Tribunal, for granting the pay scale on
of
Punjab pattern, being erroneous in law, cannot pass
the test of judicial scrutiny and accordingly, the
rt
Impugned Order is quashed and set-aside.
17. Second contention of the Learned Advocate
General is that the Impugned Order granting pay
scales in view of “mere similarity in nomenclature or
designation” (of Inspectors}, by “ignoring other relevant
factors” that employees governed by different set of
rules, belonging to different cadres in different States
was perverse and is erroneous.
Above contention of the Learned Advocate
General has force, for the reason, firstly, similarity
in pay scale cannot be inferred “merely on the
basis of similarity in designation”; and secondly,
in order to infer parity-equation, between both set
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 56 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
of employees are needed to have been appointed
by the same authority and the eligibility including
qualifications, classification of posts, the mode of
.
recruitment, criteria of selection, nature of work,
job, duties, functions, responsibilities and other
conditions of service in terms of service rules are
identical in all respects; and thirdly, the Impugned
of
Order directing the State of Himachal Pradesh to
grant pay scale of Rs 1800-3200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986
on Punjab
rt Pattern cannot be made applicable
in the Petitioner-State of Himachal Pradesh, when,
in the State of Punjab, the Inspectors had claimed
pay scale of Rs 1800-3200, {which was a selection
grade} as given to the categories of Auditors in
other departments and as given to Assistants /
Accountants in the State of Punjab ; and fourthly,
in the State of Himachal Pradesh, by virtue of
the Himachal Pradesh Revised Pay Rules notified
on 23.07.1990 (Annexure A-10), the Assistants and
Accountants working in other departments of the
State of Himachal Pradesh (redesignated as Senior
Assistants) were already given the revised pay scale
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 57 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
of Rs 1800-3200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 ; and fifthly,
in the State of Himachal Pradesh, though the Junior
Auditors working in other departments, including
.
Local Audit of Finance department were granted the
pay scale of Rs 1500-2640 with selection grade of
Rs 1800-3200 after 5 years of service on or after
01.01.1986 as per the Himachal Pradesh Revised
of
Pay Rules notified on 12.09.1991 (Annexure A-8) and
once nothing has been placed on record to establish
wholesome
rt and wholesale identity between Junior
Auditors in the Local Audit in Finance Department
vis-à-vis Respondent Employees, being Inspectors
in Cooperation Department in the State of Himachal
Pradesh, based on eligibility (including qualifications),
mode of selection-recruitment, factum of having been
appointed by same or different authority, nature of
work, job profile, duties, functions, value of work,
difference in skills and responsibilities, reliability,
dexterity and the conditions of service including the
promotional avenues etc. therefore, the Impugned
Order directing the State of Himachal Pradesh to
grant pay scale of Rs 1800-3200, which in-fact was
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 58 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
a selection grade granted to the Junior Auditors
cannot be ipso facto granted to Respondent-Employees
herein; and sixthly, merely because the selection
.
grade of Rs 1800-3200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 has been
granted to the Junior Auditors in State of Punjab
and/or in the State of Himachal Pradesh cannot
form the basis for granting this scale to Respondents
of
-Employees, who were Inspectors in the Cooperation
Department of the Petitioner-State; and seventhly,
rt
the issue as to whether the Respondent-Employees,
being Inspectors were to be granted the selection
grade or not w.e.f. 01.01.1986 fell within the domain
of the expert body or the pay commission or the
State and the same cannot be automatically claimed
as of right unless the state-employer by a policy
decision decides to grant the selection grade to
the Respondent-Employees; and seventhly, even the
Respondents-Employees have not placed on record
any statutory rule or norm etc. which creates an
enforceable legal right for granting the selection
grade of Rs 1800-3200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 to all
employees, including the Inspectors irrespective of
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 59 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
any other preconditions as of right; and eighthly,
nothing has been placed on record by Respondent
Employees to establish that the selection grade was
.
admissible for the post of Inspectors in Cooperation
Department after 01.01.1986; and ninthly, once the
subject post (Inspectors in Cooperation department)
and the reference post (Junior Auditors in Local
of
Audit department under Finance Department) are
different entities, constituting different cadres, under
rt
different establishments, having dissimilar eligibility
conditions including qualifications and have dissimilar
powers, job profile, duties, responsibilities, promotional
avenues etc. and both were governed by different
set of rules therefore, mere similarity in nomenclature
or designation cannot be the sole determinative
test for inferring parity-equation; and tenthly, in
the present batch of cases, once the Petitioner
State had notified the State Revised Pay Rules on
09.05.1991 (Annexure A-3, with additional affidavit
filed in case of Jagdish Kumar) discontinuing the
selection grade for Inspectors-Respondents-Employees
but the Respondent Employees have slept over their
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 60 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
rights as well as remedies and had acquiesced to
discontinuance or non-grant of selection grade from
1991 till their respective retirements coupled with
.
the fact only Respondent no 1, woke up from the
slumber after 16 years and submitted representation
on 07.07.2007 and acquiescence disentitles the
Respondent-Employees for any relief ; and lastly,
of
in totality of circumstances, the Impugned Order dated
13.04.2018 {Annexure P-1} mandating the State of
rt
Himachal Pradesh-petitioners to grant the pay scale
on Punjab pattern, cannot pass the test of judicial
scrutiny, in view of the mandate of law discussed
herein, and thus the Impugned Order is interdicted
and set-aside.
EQUATION BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT CADRES
OR EMPLOYEES GOVERNED BY DIFFERENT
SET OF RULES OR DIFFERENT ENTITIES IS
IMPERMISSIBLE:
17(i). While outlining the broad parameters for
invoking “equal pay for equal work”, the Honble
Supreme Court has held in State of Punjab versus
Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148, that “onus of proof”
of parity between the subject post and reference
post is of the person, who claims it by establishing
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 61 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
that “unequal pay scales is based on no classification
or irrational classification” and further mandated that
in case, the subject post and reference post are in
.
different establishments, having different management
having different control under different entities and
if both these post are in different geographical
locations and merely because at any earlier point
of
of time, the subject post and reference post wereplaced in the same pay scale cannot be a ground
rt
to accept the plea of equal pay for equal workand mere nomenclature cannot be determinative of
parity. Claim for parity or equal pay for equal work”
is neither attracted nor can it be accorded, in case
of “dissimilar powers, duties, responsibilities and
even absence of proof of equal sensitivity, qualitatively
responsibility, reliability and confidentiality, volume
of work, the mode of recruitment and pay scales
can be different if hierarchy and promotional avenues
of the subject post and reference post is different.
17(i-a). Even if parity existed in the past, then the
same cannot made the basis for same pay scales
ignoring the difference in method of recruitment and
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 62 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
qualifications and the fact that the posts were in
different organizations, has been answered by the
Honble Three Judges of the Supreme Court in the
.
case of Delhi Transport Corporation Security Staff
Union (Regd) versus Delhi Transport Corporation
(2018) 16 SCC 619, by mandating that the doctrine
of “equal pay for equal work” should not be
of
misunderstood and misapplied, by freely revising and
enhancing pay scales across the board and Tribunals
rt
shall exercise restraint, in absence of any material
to hold that pay scale were consciously kept at par
keeping in mind aspects with regard to qualifications
nature of duties etc. Merely because the pay scales
may have been remained the same cannot lead to
conclusion of a conscious parity.
17(i-b). Claim of incumbents for same pay scales
alleging discrimination or arbitrariness was turned
down in an eventuality where two set of persons
belonged to different cadres and were governed by
two set of rules by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Hirandra Kumar versus High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad and another (2020) 17 SCC 401, in
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 63 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
the following terms:
29. For the same reason, no case of
discrimination or arbitrariness can be
made out on the basis of a facial.
comparison of the Higher Judicial Service
Rules, with the Rules governing Nyayik
Sewa. Both sets of rules cater to
different cadres. A case of discrimination
cannot be made out on the basis of
a comparison of two sets of rules
of
which govern different cadres.
17(i-c). Claim for same pay scales, where the two
rt
groups are not equal and both do not belong to
a homogenous group or class of persons and were
not similarly placed, was turned down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of Sudhir Budakoti (supra)
in the following terms:
17. The question as to whether a classification
is reasonable or not is to be answeredon the touchstone of a reasonable, common
man’s approach, keeping in mind theavowed object behind it. If the right to
equality is to be termed as a genus, a
right to non-discrimination becomes a
specie. When two identified groups are
not equal, certainly they cannot be
treated as a homogeneous group. A
reasonable classification thus certainly
would not injure the equality enshrined::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 64 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
under Article 14 when there exists an
intelligible differentia between two
groups having a rational relation to the
object. Therefore, an interference would
only be called for on the court being.
convinced that the classification causes
inequality among similarly placed
persons. The role of the court being
restrictive, generally, the task is best
left to the concerned authorities. When
a classification is made on the
of
recommendation made by a body of
experts constituted for the purpose,
rt courts will have to be more wary of
entering into the said arena as its
interference would amount to substituting
its views, a process which is best
avoided.
18. As long as the classification does not
smack of inherent arbitrariness and
conforms to justice and fair play,
there may not be any reason to
interfere with it. It is the wisdom
of the other wings which is required
to be respected except when a
classification is bordering on arbitrariness,
artificial difference and itself being
discriminatory. A decision made sans
the aforesaid situation cannot be tested
with either a suspicious or a microscopic
eye. Good-faith and intention are to
be presumed unless the contrary exists.
One has to keep in mind that the role
of the court is on the illegality involved
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 65 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
as against the governance.
17(i-d). Plea for parity-equation between persons
belonging to different cadres and in different States
.
[which in present batch of cases relates to Himachal
Pradesh vis-à-vis Punjab] was negated/repelled by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State
of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary and
of
others versus Seema Sharma, (2023) 14 SCC 376, in
the following terms:
rt 18. In Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (supra), this
Court further held that it was well-settledthat the doctrine of equal pay for equal
work could only be invoked when the
employees were similarly circumstancedin every way. Mere similarity of designation
or similarity or quantum of work was
not determinative of equality in the matterof pay scales. The Court had to consider
all the relevant factors such as the
mode of recruitment, qualifications for
the post, the nature of work, thevalue of work, responsibilities involved
and various other factors.
23. The fixation of scales of pay is a
matter of policy, with which the
Courts can only interfere in exceptional
cases where there is discrimination
between two sets of employees appointed::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 66 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
by the same authority, in the same
manner, where the eligibility criteria
is the same and the duties are identical
in every aspect.
.
Based on the principle of law as mandated
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Jagjit Singh, DTC Security Staff Union, Hirandra
Kumar, Sudhir Budakoti and Seema Sharma [supra]
of
and for reasons stated {as discussed in Para 17
above}, the Impugned order directing the State of
rt
Himachal Pradesh to grant pay scale of Rs 1800-
3200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 to the Respondents-Employees
on the Punjab pattern cannot sustain, when, the
Respondent Employees herein, belonged to different
Services under different States, who are governed by
distinctive Service Rules with variance in eligibility,
qualifications, mode of recruitment and when, both
are governed by distinctive State Service Rules and
State Revised Pay Rules and Respondent Employees
do not belong to one homogenous group of employees
within the same State. In these circumstances, the
Impugned Order dated 13.04.2018 passed by the
Learned Tribunal inferring equation-parity in favour
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 67 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
of Respondents-Employees on mere ipse-dixit cannot
sustain and therefore, Impugned Order is interdicted
and accordingly set-aside.
.
18. Third contention of Learned Advocate General
is that Impugned Order dated 13.04.2018, inferring
parity-equation to the Respondents-Employees with the
employees in the State of Punjab in absence of any
of
material to establish parity-equation and also in the
absence of any express equation-parity having been
rt
granted by the Petitioner-State of Himachal Pradesh
for giving pay scale/selection grade of Rs 1800-3200
w.e.f. 01.01.1986 {as Inspectors}, is erroneous in
law.
Above contention of the Learned Advocate
General has force, for the reason, that the fixation
of pay and grant of selection grade or time scales
and extent of revision, date(s) of its implementation
and the issue regarding determination of equation
or parity has to be tested by taking into account
various parameters i.e. the mode of recruitment,
eligibility and qualification(s), nature of work, value
of work, responsibilities, duties in the backdrop
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 68 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
of social, revenue and economic conditions besides
exigencies and diverse situation within the exclusive
domain of an employer. Right to parity-equation
.
can accrue in case an employer takes a conscious
decision to equate two or more posts and in the
absence of any conscious decision having been
taken by the State of Himachal Pradesh, no legally
of
enforceable right accrues to Respondent Employees
for parity-equation, either with the counterparts in
rt
the State of Punjab or with the category of junior
Auditors or Assistants/Accountants in the State of
Punjab and also within the Petitioner-State, which
is absent, in the present batch of cases.
ANOMALY IN PAY CANNOT BE INFERRED IN
ABSENCE OF EXPRESS EQUATION OF POSTS:
VITIATES IMPUGNED ORDER AND DISENTITLES
EMPLOYEES FOR RELIEF:
18(i). Perusal of the paper book indicates that
there is no material on record to prove and establish
that the petitioner-State of Himachal Pradesh had
taken any conscious decision to equate Inspectors
[Audit]/Inspector [General] with corresponding category
of employees in the State of Punjab. An anomaly
in pay arises only if the State Authorities by
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 69 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
way of conscious decision equates two or more
posts {notwithstanding their different nomenclature
or distinct qualifications or dissimilarity}. In absence
.
of any conscious express equation, no anomaly is
inferable and employees have neither any vested
nor indefeasible right to claim parity.
18(i-a). While dealing with a similar fact-situation
of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Stateof Uttar Pradesh and Another Versus Virendra
rt
Bahadur Katheria and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine1712, has mandated that parity cannot be claimed
as an indefeasible and enforceable right except,
where, the competent authority has taken a conscious
decision to equate two posts notwithstanding their
different nomenclature or their distinct qualifications.
In the absence of any express equation between
the two posts, right of equality under Article 14
of the Constitution cannot be said to have been
infringed. Even the job relating to the creation,
merger, de-merger or amalgamation of cadres within
a service is the prerogative of the State, which is
founded on a policy decision, and such decision
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 70 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
is not subject to judicial review unless it is found
to be brazenly offending Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India, in the following terms:
.
53. It needs no emphasis that prescription
of pay scale for a post entails Policy
decision based upon the recommendationsof an expert body like Pay Commission.
All that the State is obligated to ensure
is that the pay structure of a promotional
of
or higher post is not lower than
the feeder cadre. Similarly, pay parity
cannot be claimed as an indefeasible
rt enforceable
where the
right
Competent
save and
Authority
except
has
taken a conscious decision to equate
two posts notwithstanding their different
nomenclature or distinct qualifications.
Incidental grant of same pay scale to
two or more posts, without any express
equation amongst such posts, cannot
be termed as an anomaly in a pay
scale of a nature which can be said to
have infringed the right to equality
under Article 16 of our Constitution.
54. Equally well settled is that the creation,
merger, de-merger or amalgamation of
cadres within a service to bring efficacy
or in the administrative exigencies,
is the State’s prerogative. The Court
in exercise of its power of judicial review
would sparingly interfere in such a
policy decision, unless it is found to
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 71 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
have brazenly offended Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution.
While examining the facts of the instant
batch of cases in the light of facts of law in the
.
case of Virendra Bahadur Katheria [supra], this
Court has no hesitation to hold that the State
of Himachal Pradesh has not taken any express
conscious decision to equate the post of Auditors
of
redesignated as Inspectors [Audit/Gen] existing in
State of Himachal Pradesh with posts of Inspectors
rt
in the State of Punjab or to equate them with
the posts of Junior Auditors in other Departments
or with the posts of Assistants /Accountants in
the State of Punjab and/or even within the State
{being dissimilar posts and cadres, who are governed
by different Service Rules with dissimilar service
conditions}. In the absence of any conscious express
equation, an anomaly in pay cannot be inferred,
as has been erroneously inferred in the Impugned
Order In these circumstances, Impugned Order dated
13.04.2018 {Annexure P-1} inferring anomaly in pay
of Respondent Employees (as Inspectors) by equating
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 72 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
and granting parity with the Inspectors (Gen/Audit}
in the State of Punjab but without there being any
conscious express equation, being wholly erroneous
.
in law, cannot pass the test of judicial scrutiny and
therefore, the Impugned Order [Annexure P-1] passed
by Learned Tribunal is quashed and set-aside.
PLEA FOR EQUATION TO BE ESTABLISHED
BY PLACING MATERIAL ON RECORD BY
of
PERSON CLAIMING PARITY OR EQUATION :
18(ii). Negating the claim for parity on principle
of equal
rt
pay for equal work, when, no materialwas placed before the Court, regarding the nature
of duties of other categories, by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in State of Haryana and another versus
Tilak Raj and others, (2003) 6 SCC 123, in the
following terms:
11. A scale of pay is attached to a definite
post and in case of a daily wager, he
holds no posts. The respondent workerscannot be held to hold any posts to claim
even any comparison with the regular
and permanent staff for any or all
purposes including a claim for equal
pay and allowances. To claim a relief
on the basis of equality, it is for
the claimants to substantiate a clear cut
basis of equivalence and a resultant::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 73 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
hostile discrimination before becoming
eligible to claim rights on a par with
the other group vis- à-vis an alleged
discrimination. No material was placed
before the High Court as to the nature.
of the duties of either categories and
it is not possible to hold that the
principle of “equal pay for equal work”
is an abstract one.
18(ii-a). While negating the claim for parity and
of
equation where the person had failed to plead,prove and establish by cogent and convincing material
rt
that all things were equal between two posts interms of eligibility, mode of selection, nature and
quality of work, duties, reliability, confidentiality
dexterity, functional need and responsibilities, then,
in the absence of any such material on record,
the claim for parity and equation was negated, by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority
of India Limited and others versus Dibyendu
Bhattacharya, (2011) 11 SCC 122, in the following
terms:-
30. In view of the above, the law on the
issue can be summarized to the effect
that parity of pay can be claimed
by invoking the provisions of Articles::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 74 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
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 may be the same but
the skills and responsibilities may be
really and substantially different. The
other post may not require any higher
of
qualification, seniority or other like
factors. Granting parity in pay scales
rt 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 concerned posts.
Such a complex issue cannot be
adjudicated by evaluating the affidavits
filed by the parties.
31. The onus to establish the discrimination
by the employer lies on the person
claiming the parity of pay. The expert
committee has to decide such issues,
as the fixation of pay scales etc. falls
within the exclusive domain of the
executive. So long as the value judgment
of those who are responsible for
administration i.e. service conditions etc.,
is found to be bonafide, reasonable,
and on intelligible criteria which has a
rational nexus of objective of differentiation,
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 75 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
such differentiation will not amount to
discrimination. It is not prohibited in
law to have two grades of posts in
the same cadre. Thus, the nomenclature
of a post may not be the sole determinative
.
factor. The courts in exercise of their
limited power of judicial review can
only examine whether the decision of
the State authorities is rational and
just or prejudicial to a particular set
of employees. The court has to keep
of
in mind that a mere difference in
service conditions does not amount
rt to discrimination. Unless there is
complete and wholesale/ wholesome
identity between the two posts they
should not be treated as equivalent
and the Court should avoid applying
the principle of equal pay for equal
work.
18(ii-b). Likewise, in Civil Appeal No. 9124 of
2014, State of Himachal Pradesh and another
versus Tilak Raj, decided on 01.09.2014, the claim
for parity and equation was disallowed, when, the
employees were working in different cadres/different
departments and nothing existed on record, qua
the exactness and similarity of work and other
parameters, by reversing the findings recorded by
High Court, in the following terms:
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 76 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
22. It is also clear that disputed question
of facts were involved in the petitions
because according to the respondents,
who were petitioners before the High
Court, nature of work done by them
.
was similar to that of the work of other
Laboratory Attendants or Laboratory
Assistants. Without looking at the nature
of work done by persons working in
different cadres in different departments
one cannot jump to a conclusion that
of
all these persons were doing similar
type of work simply because in a
rt civil suit, one particular person had
succeeded after adducing evidence.
There is nothing on record to show
that the High Court had examined
the nature of work done by the
respondents and other persons who
were getting higher pay scale. The High
Court had also not considered the fact
that qualifications required for appointment
to both the posts were different. In our
opinion, the High Court should not
have entertained all these petitions
where disputed questions of fact were
required to be examined. Without
examining relevant evidence regarding
exact nature of work, working
conditions and other relevant factors,
it is not possible to come to a
conclusion with regard to similarity
in the nature of work done by
persons belonging to different cadres
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 77 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
and normally such exercise should
not be carried out by the High Court
under its writ jurisdiction. It is settled
law that the work of fixing pay
scale is left to an expert body
.
like Pay Commission or other similar
body, as held by this Court in
several cases, including the case of
S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand
(2007) 8 SCC 279. Moreover, qualifications,
experience, etc are also required to be
of
examined before fixing pay scales. Such
an exercise was not carried out in this
rt case by the High Court.
18(ii-c). Similar principle of law that a party who
claims parity must plead and proved similarity
and parity by placing material on record, has been
outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab
State Electricity Board and another versus
Thana Singh and others, (2019) 4 SCC 113, in the
following terms:
19. 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::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 78 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
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
of
be applied in a vacuum. The
constitutional scheme postulates equal
pay for equal work for those who
are equally placed in all respects.
The court must consider the factors
rt 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
of establishing 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 Others (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,
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)”.
20. Burden of establishing parity in pay
scale and employment is on the person
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 79 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
claiming such right. There were neither
pleadings nor any material produced
by the respondents to prove that the
nature of work performed by the Sub
Fire Officers is similar with that of
.
the Head Clerks and the Internal
Auditors to claim parity of pay scale.
As pointed out earlier, the burden lies
upon the party who claims parity of
pay scale to prove similarity in duties
and responsibilities. In the writ petition,
of
respondents have only claimed parity of
pay scale with those of the employees
rtworking under the Punjab Government
which was not accepted by the learned
Single Judge. Determination of parity
or disparity in duties and responsibilities
is a complex issue and the same
should be left to the expert body.
When the expert body considered revision
of pay for various posts, it did not
revise the pay scale of Sub Fire Officers.
When the expert body has taken such
a view, it is not for the courts to
substitute its views and interfere
with the same and take a different
view.
26. The respondents have not produced
any material to show that there is
any similarity/identity between the
posts of Sub Fire Officers and the
Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional
Accountants and Internal Auditors in
terms of the nature of duties,
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 80 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
responsibilities, qualifications and mode
of recruitment etc. to apply the principle
of parity of pay scale. The learned
Single Judge did not keep in view that
the nature of duties and responsibilities
.
performed by the Sub Fire Officers are
different and parity cannot be claimed
merely on the ground that they are
categorized in one group. The judgment
of the learned Single Judge and the
impugned judgment of the Division Bench
of
cannot be sustained and are liable to
be set aside.
18(ii-d).
rtWhile dealing with the prerequisites, for
claiming equation or parity or equal pay for equal
work, the Honble Supreme Court has outlined in
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited vs Rajesh
Kumar Jindal and others, (2019) 3 SCC 547, in the
following terms:-
14. Ordinarily, the courts will not enter
upon the task of job evaluation which
is generally left to expert bodies likethe 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:-
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 81 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
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 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 should be left to the Executive
Government, who can get it determined
by expert bodies like the Pay
of
Commission, and such expert body
would be the best judge to evaluate the
nature of duties and responsibilities of
rt 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….”
18(ii-e). Equation or parity in pay scale including
the extent of revision has been approved to be
an offshoot of the State Policy, lying within the
exclusive domain of an employer as per the mandate
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State
Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association
and others versus State of Maharashtra and others
(2023) 11 SCC 186, in the followisng terms:
27. That on whether, and what should be
the extent of pay revision, are::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 82 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
undoubtedly matters falling within the
domain of executive policy making. At
the same time, a larger public interest
is involved, impelling revision of pay of
public officials and employees. Sound.
public policy considerations appear to
have weighed with the Union and state
governments, and other public employers,
which have carried out pay revision
exercises, periodically (usually once a
decade, for the past 50 years or so). The
of
rationale for such periodic pay revisions
is to ensure that the salaries and
rt emoluments that public employees enjoy,
should keep pace with the increased
cost of living and the general inflationary
trends, and ensure it does not adversely
impact employees. Pay revisions also
subserve other objectives, such as
enthusing a renewed sense of commitment
and loyalty towards public employment.
Another important public interest
consideration, is that such revisions are
meant to deter public servants from the
lure of gratification; of supplementing
their income by accepting money or
other inducements for discharging their
functions.
Reference to the material on record in
instant petition, indicates that Respondents-Original
Applicants-Employees have not placed any cogent
and convincing material on record to establish the
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 83 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
factum of parity and equation vis-à-vis counterpart
category of employees in the State of Punjab. In
absence of any material on record to establish
.
conscious express equation or parity having been
accorded by the State of Himachal Pradesh
with the Inspector in the State of Punjab or
with the Junior Auditors in other departments or
of
Assistants/Accountants in the State of Punjab or
within the Petitioner-State, no anomaly in pay could
rt
be inferred. For asserting anomaly and for claiming
equation, the Respondent Employees were bound
to plead and prove that two posts were conferred
equation by a Statute or Statutory Rule or the
conscious express equation granted by the State
has been violated. Nothing has been placed on
record to establish conferment of equation and its
infraction by Petitioner-State of Himachal Pradesh.
In these circumstances, the Impugned Order inferring
anomaly, without there being any conferment of
equation either by the Statute or by a Statutory
Rules or a conscious express decision taken by
the Petitioner-State reveals perversity, being contrary
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 84 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
to the principles mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court as discussed hereinabove and the Impugned
order cannot sustain and is interfered with.
.
LIMITS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN MATTERS
RELATING TO DETERMINATION OF PAY SCALES,
EQUATION OF POSTS AND SALARIES:
19. Fourth contention of the Learned Advocate
General is that Learned Tribunal could not pass
of
the Impugned Order so as to substituting its viewsand rewrite the State Service Rules {R & P Rules}
rt
and State Revised Pay Rules for the post of Inspectorsin cooperation department of the Petitioner State.
The above contention has substance, for
the reason, that while dealing with the scope of
judicial review in matters relating to “classification
of posts, determination of pay scales, equation of
posts and salaries”, the Honble Supreme Court has
mandated in case of Union of India vs Indian
Navy Civilian Design Officers Association, (2023)
19 SCC 482, that these functions lie within the
exclusive domain of an employer, which may be got
examined by the expert body i.e. the pay commission
or departmental expert body [as the case may
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 85 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
be}. Power of judicial review cannot be invoked by
Courts so as to substitute its own wisdom
vis-à-vis the evaluation to be undertaken by the
.
expert body, who has to examine the classification
of post, determination of pay structure, equation
of posts and salaries prescribed by the expert body
which is accepted by the executive, the State.
of
While exercising judicial review, the Courts should
be slow in showing indulgence in matters having
rt
financial implication. Unless and until a gross case
of infraction of a Statute or any Statutory Rules
or violation of any conscious express decision taken
by a State (granting equation or parity) or a case
of grave error revealing arbitrariness or unfairness
had crept in while fixing the pay for a post
and that too on the basis of cogent, convincing
and conclusive material on record, Courts should be
slow in showing indulgence. Moreover, an employee
who asserts a claim for parity or equation or
equal pay for equal work is bound to assert and
establish a claim on the basis of material on
record. In the absence of material on record, the
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 86 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
Court cannot infer equation-parity and grant same
pay scales as granted to counterparts in another
State or in the State of Punjab.
.
19(i). Even the directions contained in Impugned
Order amounts to violating the core principle
of separation of power for the reason that every
State has been vested with primary responsibility
of
of policy formulation. The discretion vested in the
State to frame a policy including the mode, manner
and
rt
time and stage of issuance lies within the
exclusive domain of the State. No person has any
vested right to compel the State to formulate
a policy at its asking, and that too in a specific
manner. Courts cannot encroach upon the field
marked by the Constitution for the Legislature or
Executive. Courts can only examine the legality or
validity of legislation or the governmental action. No
person or an employee has any vested right to
seek revision of pay scales or fixation of pay
granted by another State Government for its
employees. There is no Constitutional mandate that
rules, norms or decisions taken for governing the
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 87 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
conditions of service of the employees in one State
will ipso-facto apply to the employees of another
State. Even if, one State had expressly adopted the
.
rules, norms or decision taken by another State
in the past and/or on a particular occasion and/
or with reference to an issue in specific fact-situation
and therefore, even in any such eventuality, an
of
employee does not have any enforceable and
vested right to claim benefit of such adoption
rt
in perpetuality. Moreover, the prescription of pay
scales is based on its policy decision taken
after considering various parameters including its
staffing pattern, Recruitment and Promotion Rules,
method of recruitment, educational qualifications,
geographical, traditional and territorial conditions,
administrative needs and requirements, the financial
resources, including financial implications and other
ancillary factors etc. coupled with the fact that no
law commands the State of Himachal Pradesh
to ipso-facto follow Punjab pattern of pay scales
and once there is no express adoption of the
Punjab pay scales and even there is “no conscious
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 88 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
express equation-parity” of posts of Inspectors in
Himachal with employees in the State of Punjab and
therefore, once above foundational parameters are not
.
satisfied in instant case, therefore, Impugned Order
is vitiated.
COURTS-TRIBUNALS CAN NEITHER REWRITE
RECASTE OR REFRAME RULES CONTRARY
TO EXISTING STATE RULES:
of
19(i-a). Prescribing conditions of service, includinggrant of pay scales or revised or revised pay scales
rt
for its employees is based on a policy decisionto be taken after considering various parameters
including staffing pattern, recruitment and promotion
Rules, method of recruitment, educational qualifications,
geographical, traditional, territorial conditions and
administrative requirement and need for constituting
and reconstituting its services/cadres, which includes
merger of cadres, de-merger, equation of posts,
inflation, financial implications and financial resources
and other ancillary factors. Aforesaid task is assigned
to experts by constituting a pay commission or
any like expert body. On receipt of recommendations
from expert body, the State Government after due
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 89 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
deliberation accepts recommendations either wholly
or in part. Upon acceptance of recommendations
by the Government, the State Authorities formally
.
notifies the acceptance in the form of Pay Rules.
After issuance of these Rules, that a right accrues
to an employee for getting benefit of pay as per
notified revised pay or rerevised pay rules and
of
norms. In this backdrop, once the Petitioners-Stateof Himachal Pradesh had notified the HP Civil
Services
rt
(Category/Post wise Revised Pay) Ruleson 31.03.1980 [Annexure A-2] and on 09.05.1991
[Annexure A-3], revised the pay scale of Auditors
redesigned as Inspector, from Rs.570-1080 to Rs
1640-2925 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and the State Service
Rules and State Revised Pay Rules occupied the
field therefore, unless these Rules were questioned
and declared ultra-vires, till then, the presumption
of constitutionality is attached to these Rules, in
terms of the mandate of the Honble Supreme Court
in the cases of Dr Jaya Thakur vs Union of
India, (2023) 10 SCC 276 [Para 73], and Allahabad
University vs Geetanjali Tiwari, 2024 SCC Online
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 90 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
3776 [Para 27}. Moreover, there is no law which
commands the State of Himachal Pradesh to ipso-
facto follow the rules or norms notified for its
.
employees by the State of Punjab or another State.
The State of Himachal Pradesh is not legally bound
to follow pay scales notified by the State of Punjab
automatically. Even any change carried out by
of
the State of Punjab or by another State cannot besought to be enforced by an employee. Notwithstanding
rt
the above, a State may in its wisdom, decide tofollow and apply the rules or norms governing
the conditions of service, including pay or revised
pay notified by another State or the State of
Punjab. Even equation or parity cannot be claimed
as of right, unless such equation accrues from
“a Statute or a Statutory Rule or a conscious
express equation and it adoption by the State.
The directions contained in the Impugned
order entitling the Respondents-Employees who are
employees of the Petitioner State by granting them
the pay scales as existing in the State of Punjab
by acting contrary to and dehors the State Revised
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 91 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
Pay Rules so as to rewrite, recast and reframe
the State Rules by mandating to follow the
Punjab pattern or to grant benefits on the basis
.
of rules existing in State of Punjab is certainly
beyond the power and authority vested in the
Tribunal-Courts, in view of the principles mandated
by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Dr
of
Ashwini Kumar vs Union of India, (2020) 13SCC 585 {Para 13}. The Impugned Order violates
the core
rt principle of separation of power byencroaching upon the field of policy making and
the power to frame Rules under proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution of India. Courts can only
examine the legality or validity of legislation or the
governmental action. No person or an employee
has any vested right to seek the revision of
pay or fixation of pay as granted by another
State.
Based on the above discussion and the
principles of law outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in cases of Dibyendu Bhattacharya, Tilak
Raj, Thana Singh, Dr Jaya Thakur, Geetanjali
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 92 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
Tiwari, Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Assn
and Ashwini Kumar [supra], the Impugned Order
directing the Petitioner-State of Himachal Pradesh
.
to grant the pay scale on Punjab pattern as given
by the State of Punjab, by giving a complete go
bye and by acting in derogation of and dehors
the State Revised Pay Rules i.e. HPCS Revised Pay
of
Rules of 09.05.1991 [Annexure A-3 in the file of
Jagdish Kumar] and subsequent Revised Pay Rules,
rt
cannot sustain.
DIFFERENT PAY NORMS PERMISSIBLE BETWEEN
TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES:
19(ii). While adjudicating the claim for parity of
employees of a Board, autonomous statutory body
vis-à-vis the employees of the State of Gujarat the
claim was negated that the Board employees cannot
claim parity with the State Government employees
as Board is an independent entity and it might
have its own financial capacity and therefore its
employees cannot claim parity with the employees
of the State Government. Even if the in principle, within
the same State, the claim for parity between State
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 93 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
Board vis-à-vis the State Government employees
was negated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh
Pravinchandra Rajyaguru versus Gujarat Water
.
Supply and Sewerage Board and others, (2021) 19
SCC 128, in the following terms:
18. Being daily rated employees of the
Respondent-Board, they cannot claim as
of right similar treatment as Governmentof
employees. The Respondent-Board is an
independent entity and it might have
its own financial capacity and therefore
rt its employees cannot claim parity with
the employees of the State Government.
19. The State Government and the
autonomous Board/bodies cannot be put
at par. The Board has to depend upontheir own financial resources. In the
recent decision in the case of Punjab
State Cooperative Milk ProducersFederation Limited and Another (Supra)
it is observed in paragraph 32 as under:
“32. The Central or State
Government is empowered to levytaxes to meet out the expenses
of the State. It is always a conscious
decision of the Government as
to how much taxes have to be levied
so as to not cause excessive burden
on the citizens. But the Boards
and Corporations have to depend
on either their own resources or
seek grant from the Central/ State
Government, as the case may be,::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 94 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
for their expenditures. Therefore,
the grant of benefits of higher
pay scale to the Central/State
Government employees stand on
different footing than grant of
pay scale by an instrumentality.
of the State.”
Therefore, the daily rated employees
of the Board cannot as a matter of
right claim the parity of pay scales
with the Government employees.
of
In the backdrop of the mandate of law
in the case of Rajesh Pravinchandra Rajyaguru,
two
rt
distinct and separate entities within a state
cannot ipso-facto claim equation-parity unless the
decision is adopted. In the instant case, there is
nothing on record that the petitioner-State Authorities
had adopted the revised pay scales prescribed by
the State of Punjab and in the absence of any
express adoption, the Impugned order (Annexure P-1),
inferring parity or equation in favour of Respondents
-Employees, being without authority of law is turned
down.
FAILURE TO ASSAIL STATE REVISED PAY
RULES OF 1991 DISENTITLES RESPONDENT-
EMPLOYEES FOR ANY RELIEF:
20. Last contention of the Learned Advocate
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 95 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
General is that the Respondents-Original Applicants-
Employees were governed by the State Revised Pay
Rules dated 09.05.1991 [Annexure A-3], revising
.
the pay scale of Auditors redesigned as Inspector,
from Rs.570-1080 to Rs 1640-2925 w.e.f. 01.01.1986
and once these Rules have not been questioned/
assailed therefore, the Learned Tribunal had erred
of
in granting the pay scales to Respondnets-Employees
on the Punjab pattern, as was granted to Inspectors
rt
in the State of Punjab.
20(i). Not laying a challenge to the extant rules
disentitles a person for relief, by the Honble Supreme
Court in Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission
versus Manish Bakawale and others, (2021) 18 SCC
61, in the following terms:
20. In the present facts and circumstances,
the Rule concerned provides for a definite
process, which was also depicted in theadvertisement calling for applications.
The Rule is not under challenge. The
candidate concerned had applied without
demur and also furnished a declaration
with regard to correctness of details
provided. He cannot thereafter turn
around to seek alteration of the position
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 96 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
to the detriment of others.
In present batch of cases, the Respondents
-Employees have not laid any challenge to the State
.
Revised Pay Rules dated 09.05.1991 [Annexure A-3
in file of Jagdish Kumar file] notified by the State
of Himachal Pradesh, giving pay scale of Rs.
1640-2925 to Inspectors w.e.f. 01.01.1986. In absence
of
of any challenge to the Rules, the only legal drawable
conclusion is that Himachal Pradesh Civil Services
rt
Revised Pay Rules dated 09.05.1991 holds the field
and are valid. Thus, the directions issued by the
Tribunal in the Impugned Order dated 13.04.2018,
directing to grant the pay scales to the Respondent
Employees, which were granted by the State of
Punjab amounts to giving a complete go-bye and
by acting dehors the State Rules notified under the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India
so as to render the State Revised Pay Rules as
redundant or otiose is impermissible. Moreover, the
findings recorded by the Tribunal in Paras 11 and
16 of Impugned Order that the post of Inspector
was a higher post vis-à-vis post of Junior Auditor
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 97 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
in other departments {in State of Punjab as detailed
in para 10 of the Impugned Order} cannot be of
any assistance to the Respondents Employees, for
.
the reason, the aforesaid two posts were in different
states and were in different cadres and were governed
by different State Rules. Even the findings recorded
in Para 16 of Impugned Order that the post of
of
Inspector was higher post than that of Auditors is
misplaced, when, the Auditors were redesignated as
Inspectors
rt on 16.03.1983 and by virtue of the
State Revised Pay Rules dated 09.05.1991 both were
placed in the same pay scale of Rs 1640-2925
w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and therefore, the findings recorded
in Impugned Order being contrary to the notified
conscious State decision and the State Revised Pay
Rules, cannot sustain and the same is quashed and
set-aside.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT EMPLOYEES AND
ANALYSIS:
21. Learned Counsels appearing for Respondent
Employees, Mr Surinder Saklani and Ms Shreya
Chauhan have supported the Impugned Order passed
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 98 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
by Learned Tribunal. During hearing, three additional
contentions have been made, firstly, once Registrar
Cooperative Societies has sent a communication to
.
Principal Secretary [Cooperation] on 19.10.2010 and
on 28.04.2012 [Annexure P-7 and Annexure P-16
in TA file of Employees Association] for giving pay
scale of Rs 1800-3200 to the Respondent-Employees
of
as was given by the State of Punjab then, the
denial of said pay scale was illegal ; and secondly,
rt
Petitioner-State of Himachal Pradesh cannot deviate
from the Punjab Pattern of Pay scales, as was given
to Inspectors in Punjab in the case of Harbhajan
Singh Bajwa (supra).
21(i). So far as the first contention is concerned,
this Court is of the considered view that mere
internal communications or recommendations or
even the file noting’s cannot be relied upon as
the basis to claim a right, unless the same ripens
into a decision, which is duly notified inaccordance
with law, in view of the mandate of the Honble
Supreme Court in the cases of KSB Ali versus State
of Andhra Pradesh, (2018) 11 SCC 277, which was
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 99 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
reiterated in the case of Mahadeo versus Smt Sovan
Devi & Ors (CA No 5876 of 2022 i.e. 2022 Live
Law (SC) 730 and reinforced in case of Municipal
.
Committee versus Jai Narayan & Co (2023) 14
SCC 766. In these circumstances, the contention of
Learned Counsel(s) for the respondent Employees
does not hold good and the same is turned down.
of
21(ii). So far as second contention is concerned,
the same cannot be of any assistance, for the reason,
rt
that no law commands the State of Himachal Pradesh
to follow the pay scales granted to its employees
by the State of Punjab. Even if the Petitioner State
had followed Punjab pattern of scales, in the past,
then also, the Petitioner State is not bound to follow
the same for future also. The judgement rendered
by Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the
case of Harbhajan Singh Bajwa (supra) cannot ipso-
facto be applied to the Respondent employees in
the State of Himachal Pradesh, when, the alleged
parity-equation accorded in the aforesaid judgement
to the Inspectors in Punjab with the Junior Auditors
and Assistants/ Accountants in Punjab cannot be
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 100 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
ipso facto extended/applied in the State of Himachal
Pradesh, unless and until the Respondent-Employees
herein, establish such a right either under a Statute
.
or any Statutory Rules or by an conscious express
equation of posts by adoption, duly notified by
the State inaccordance with law. Absence of these
pre-requisites disentitles the Respondent-Employees
of
for any relief. Moreover, the higher pay scale of Rs
1800-3200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 granted to Inspectors
rt
in the State of Punjab (above normal scale of Rs
1640-2925 as applicable w.e.f. 01.01.1986) was in-
fact a selection grade, which cannot be granted
automatically, for the reason, that the issue as
to whether the selection grade was to be given
or discontinued for Inspectors in the State of
Himachal Pradesh was a policy decision. Nothing
has been placed on record by the Respondent
Employees to establish admissibility of this benefit
to them, as the matter regarding creation of cadres,
abolition of cadres, merger of cadres, amalgamation
of cadres and prescription of pay scales, including
selection grade or time scales lies within the domain
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 101 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
of employer in terms of the mandate of the
Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India
versus Pushpa Rani (2008) 9 SCC 242 and in
.
case of Dhole Govind Sahebrao and Ors versus
Union of India, (2015) 6 SCC 727, nothing has
been placed on record to establish the infraction
of any statutory right or legal right regarding the
of
admissibility of selection grade or pay scale of Rs
1800-3200, when, the State Revised Pay Rules dated
rt
09.05.1991 [Annexure A-3 in Lead Case of Jagdish
Kumar] did not provide for grant of any such pay
scale to the Respondent-Employees herein, in the
fact-situation, of present batch of cases.
21(iii). So far as third contention, is concerned,
by placing reliance on the judgment of the Honble
Supreme Court, in case of Haryana Minor Irrigation
Tubewells Corporation versus G S Uppal (2008) 7
SCC 375 is concerned, the same was distinguishable
on facts, wherein, after rectification of anomaly, the
rectified pay scale was granted to deputationists but
was denied by Corporation to its own employees was
held to be discriminatory.
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
- 102 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
CONCLUSION:
22. In view of discussion and based on the
material on record and principles of law as referred
.
to above and in facts of instant case, the questions
formulated are answered, as under:
Question no (i) in
In reference to the
Para 13, as to whether State of Himachal Pradesh
of
is bound to adopt and grant the same pay scales
to the Respondent-Employees which are granted
by
rt
another State including the State of Punjab
is answered in the negative, for the reason, that
the Petitioner-State of Himachal Pradesh had notified
the State Service Rules and the Himachal Pradesh
Civil Services [Revised Pay] Rules on 09.05.1991
[Annexure A-3] giving revised pay scale of Rs.
1640-2925 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 to the Auditors {after
having been designated as Inspectors on 16.03.1983}
then, Respondent-Employees in the State of Himachal
Pradesh have no vested right to seek benefit of
revised pay scales as was granted to its employees
by the State of Punjab. The State of Himachal Pradesh
cannot be compelled to follow the conditions of
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 103 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
service, including pay scales prescribed by another
State, including the State of Punjab. There is no
law (Constitutional mandate or Statute or Statuary
.
Rule) which commands the Petitioner-State of Himachal
Pradesh to follow or to adopt the pay scales or
other conditions of service notified by the State of
Punjab by issuing the Punjab Pay Revision Rules
of
or Regulations or Norms. Even if there is no legal
obligation on the State of Himachal Pradesh to
rt
follow the Punjab Pay Rules or norms yet, the State
of Himachal Pradesh may, in its wisdom, as a policy
matter, may decide to follow the Punjab Pay Rules
and norms by way of an “express adoption”. An
adoption cannot be an adoption in perpetuity. In
the past, in case the State of Himachal had expressly
adopted the conditions of service as prescribed by
another State or the State of Punjab therefore, the
State of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow,
all or any of the changes carried out by another
State or the State of Punjab automatically. Unless
and until the changed norms or the new norms
notified by another State or the State of Punjab
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 104 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
are expressly adopted and thereafter notified
inaccordance with law so as to fructify as a
decision, till then, such changed or new or altered
.
rules or norms are not ipso-facto binding on the
State of Himachal Pradesh. Once the State Revised
Pay Rules of 09.05.1991 [Annexure A-3 in Lead
Case of Jagdish Kumar] occupied the field and the
of
Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees have not
laid a challenge to State Revised Pay Rules then,
rt
Respondent Employees cannot have any enforceable
right for a pay scale or selection grade, dehors the
State Service Rules or State Revised Pay Rules.
Further, issue as to whether the pay of employees
is to be revised or not and whether such revision
has to be with selection grade or not then, the
mode, manner, extent of revision and date of its
applicability is dependent upon a policy decision to
be taken by the State Authorities. For this purpose,
State may in its wisdom, may take a call regarding
revision of pay (including admissibility of selection
grade) by an expert body, {named as Pay Commission
or any other departmental body of experts), who
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 105 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
examines pros and cons, on the basis of various
parameters like staffing pattern, the Recruitment
and Promotion Rules, the method of recruitment,
.
educational qualifications, geographical /traditional/
territorial conditions, administrative needs, financial
resources, inflation, financial implications, issue of
examining equation of posts, need for structuring,
of
restructuring {including merger and bifurcation of
existing cadres or services} etc and then to furnish
rt
a report to the State Government. Such a report,
is subject to examination and approval by the
State Government, who may, by way of a policy
decision, in its wisdom, decide to accept the report
wholly or in part as it is or with modifications.
It is after acceptance of the report and issuance
of formal notification regarding the revised pay
rules and norms, a right and entitlement accrues
to an employee for receiving the revised pay as per
said Rules or norms which hold the field. In case,
no Pay Commission exists, then also, the State
Authorities in its wisdom, can decide by way of
policy decision, for giving the revised pay scales
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 106 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
(with or without selection grade) for its employees.
“Presumption of constitutionality” is attached to the
“Statutory Rules” notified under provisio to Article
.
309 of the Constitution of India. An employee has
a right to assail Statutory Rules, alleging violation
of any fundamental rights or any legal rights. The
Courts or Tribunal can neither rewrite or recast
of
or reframe or add anything to existing statutoryrules so as to pass an order in violation of or
rt
infraction of or contrary to the State Service Rulesor State Revised Pay Rules of 1991 so as to render
Statutory Rules inoperative, redundant or nugatory,
by encroaching upon the domain of executive and
the rule making power of the executive under the
provisio to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
Even, the Impugned Order inferring anomaly between
employees of two different States (Himachal vis-à-vis
Punjab) who are borne in two different cadres, have
different entities under different establishments, and
having dissimilar eligibility conditions including the
variance in qualifications and have dissimilar powers,
job-profile, duties, responsibilities, promotional avenues
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 107 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
etc. and governed by different Service Rules and
different State Revised Pay Rules issued by respective
States; and there is no Constitutional or Statutory
.
mandate nor any conscious express decision exists
mandating the petitioner-State of Himachal Pradesh
to follow or adopt the revised pay scales (including
selection grade or other incentives) notified by the
of
State of Punjab or another State, therefore, theImpugned Order mandating the Petitioner-State for
rt
granting the revised pay scales on Punjab pattern,mere on the basis of similarity in nomenclature
or designation, but without there being any express
equation of posts; is wholly unwarranted and without
authority of law.
In reference to the Question no (ii) in
Para 13, as to whether grant of higher pay scale
to Inspectors working in Cooperation department in
State of Punjab by resorting to relative assessment
of pay scales granted to Auditors, Assistants and
Accountants in other departments in the State of
Punjab could be made the basis for inferring anomaly
in case of the Respondent-Employees in the State
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 108 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
of Himachal Pradesh, is answered in the negative,
for the reason, that the issue as to whether two
posts need to be equated is to be determined in
.
any of the three eventualities, as to whether any
Constitutional Equation and Statutory Equation
exists conferring equation and in case no such equation
exists then, it is for the State to take a conscious
of
express decision for equating two or more posts,by way of a policy decision and then to notify
rt
the same inaccordance with law. Non fulfilment ofany of the three eventualities, as discussed above,
disentitles an employee for claiming equation or
parity. Anomaly in pay can only be inferred, if
two posts are conferred or granted “equation-parity”
by the Government. Absence of equation negates
the inference of anomaly in pay. Mere similarity
in pay, in the past, cannot be the basis for
claiming or maintaining same scales and that too
when, two posts are in different cadres, in different
States and their conditions of service are governed
by separate Service Rules and separate Revised Pay
Rules. Moreover, onus to establish “equation-parity”
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 109 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
lies on the employee, as per the mandate of the
Honble Supreme Court in the cases of Jagjit Singh,
Dibyendu Bhattacharya, Tilak Raj, Thana Singh
.
and Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Assn,
(supra). Power of judicial review cannot be invoked
by the Courts so as to substitute its own wisdom
vis-à-vis the classification of post, determination of
of
pay structure, equation-parity of posts if any and
salaries prescribed by the expert body or executive
rt
-State. While exercising judicial review, the Courts
should be slow in showing indulgence in matters
having financial implication, unless a gross case
of arbitrariness or unfairness is established by the
aggrieved party, by asserting a claim, on the
basis of cogent, convincing and conclusive material
on record and unless and until, cogent material
is placed on record to establish that grave error
had crept in while fixing the pay for a post,
which is missing, in the present batch of cases,
then, Learned Tribunal should have been cautious and
should have refrained from showing indulgence.
The Impugned Order dated 13.04.2018 {Annexure P-1}
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 110 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
passed by Tribunal amounts to rendering the State
Service Rules and the State Revised Pay Rules
dated 09.05.1991 otiose and nugatory and the
.
Order in question, amounts to re-writing or reframing
or recasting the existing statutory rules by
encroaching upon the domain of the executive, by
overstepping its power and authority, which cannot
of
be permitted to sustain, being perverse. Grant of
pay scale to the Inspectors in the State of Punjab
by
rt
comparing them with the Junior Auditors in
other departments and Assistants/Accountants cannot
form basis for granting the same pay scale to the
Inspectors in the State of Himachal Pradesh when,
“Petitioner State had not “expressly equated” the
post of Junior Auditors working in Local Audit
department of the Finance department or in other
departments and the posts of Assistants/Accountants
with the posts of Inspectors in the Petitioner State”
and even the absence of material on record to
establish also negates the claim of the Respondent
Employees, herein, in view of the discussion made
hereinabove. Accordingly, the Impugned Order cannot
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 111 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
sustain and the same is accordingly quashed
and set-aside.
23. Based on the material on record and the
.
above discussion, and in facts of these cases, this
Court has no hesitation to hold that the Learned
Tribunal erred in passing the Impugned Order by
overstepping its powers, jurisdiction and sphere of
of
functions {Lakshman-rekha} as demarcated by the
Constitution of India. In these circumstances, the
rt
Impugned Order dated 13.04.2018 {Annexure P-1,
in CWP No 451 of 2019, 2531 of 2019 and 2532
of 2019} and Impugned Order dated 09.08.2018
{Annexure P-1, in CWP No 2533 of 2019} passed
by Learned State Administrative Tribunal cannot
pass the test of judicial scrutiny and the same
is interdicted. Accordingly, the Impugned Order(s)
are quashed and set-aside.
24. No other point was argued/raised by any
of the parties.
DIRECTIONS:
25. In view of the above discussion and for
reasons recorded hereinabove, all the writ petitions
::: Downloaded on – 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS
– 112 – [ 2026:HHC:9106 ]
filed by Petitioner(s)-State Authorities, are allowed,
in the following terms:
(i). The Impugned Order dated 13.04.2018
{Annexure P-1} and the Order dated.
09.08.2018 {Annexure P-1} passed by
Learned State Administrative Tribunal
in respective writ petitions are quashed
and set-aside;
(ii). Impugned Order mandating Petitioner-
of
State of Himachal Pradesh to grant
the pay scale of Rs 1800-3200 to
the Respondents-Employees as Inspector
rt w.e.f. 1.1.1986, as
State of Punjab cannot sustain, being
granted by the
dehors the HPCS Revised Pay Rules
dated 09.05.1991 {Annexure A-3 in
Lead Case of Jagdish Kumar} and
subsequent Revised Pay Rules ;
(iii). Transferred Applications and the Original
Applications filed by the Respondent
Employees shall stand dismissed;
(iv). Parties to bear respective costs;
In aforesaid terms, all writ petitions and
all pending miscellaneous application(s) if any shall
accordingly, stand disposed of.
(G.S. Sandhawalia) (Ranjan Sharma)
Chief Justice Judge
March 25, 2026
(TM)
::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2026 20:33:42 :::CIS