Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 26.02.2026 vs State Of Hp And Another on 3 March, 2026
2026:HHC:5577
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWPOA No. 308 of 2019
Reserved on: 26.02.2026
Decided on: 03.03.2026
.
Saroj Kumari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of HP and another ...Respondents
of
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? 1 rt For the petitioner: Mr. Shivom Vashisth, Advocate, vice Mr. Adarsh K. Vashisth, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.
Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents may be directed to pay and release the revised pay scale amounting to ₹4400-7000/- in her favour, at par with Male/Female Multipurpose Health Workers in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Himachal Pradesh, from the due date.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, key facts for adjudication of the case are that the petitioner was offered appointment as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife by the respondents-
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2026 20:40:24 :::CIS 22026:HHC:5577 State in the pay scale of ₹950-1800/- on 25.07.2000. It has been averred in the petition that the State Government has equated the Auxiliary Nurse Midwives (hereinafter referred .
as ANMs) working in the Department of Health with the Male/Female Multipurpose Health Workers working in the Department of Ayurveda for the purpose of qualification as well as appointment.
of
3. The respondents-State vide office memorandum dated 03.03.2000 (Annexure P-3) had revised the pay scale rt of the post of Male/Female Multipurpose Health Workers from ₹950-1800/- to ₹4400-7000/-, w.e.f. 01.09.1998 and the pay scale of the category of the petitioner was not revised and they were being paid the pay scale of ₹3120- 5106/-.
4. The petitioner made a representation to the respondents dated 10.10.2009 (Annexure P-5), however, no decision was taken. It is the case of the petitioner that since she is similarly placed person and performing the identical duties and functions as being performed by Male/Female Multipurpose Health Workers in the Health Department of Government of Himachal Pradesh and further possessing the same and similar qualifications, the action on the part of ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2026 20:40:24 :::CIS 3 2026:HHC:5577 the respondents-State in not granting the pay scale at par with the Male/Female Multipurpose Health Workers is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principle of service .
jurisprudence.
5. The respondents-State filed reply to the petition and averred that the pay scales to the employees of Himachal Pradesh State Government are being given on of Punjab pattern, and, therefore, the pay scale of ANMs of Ayurveda Department has been given on the same analogy rt by the Government. It has further been averred that at the time of appointment of the petitioner, the pay scale was also mentioned and once the petitioner has accepted the same, now, after a lapse of so many years, the petitioner cannot claim the pay scale at par with the Health Department. Further in Health Department, there exists no post of ANMs. There is separate category of Female Health Workers, who are posted in rural areas sub-centers. The pay scale of ANMs cannot be equated with the Female Health Workers of Health Department, as there are separate R & P Rules in the Department.
6. The respondents-State in compliance with the order dated 29.08.2023 passed by this Court filed a ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2026 20:40:24 :::CIS 4 2026:HHC:5577 supplementary affidavit mentioning therein that there is qualitative differences between the work being performed by ANMs engaged in the Ayurveda Department as compared .
to the Female Multipurpose Health Workers engaged in the Department of Health and Family Welfare. Despite availing opportunities being granted by this Court, to the petitioner, in terms of the orders dated, 07.11.2023, 14.12.2023 and of 11.11.2025, no response has been filed to the supplementary affidavit.
rt
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully.
8. It is not in dispute that there are different Rules for the purpose of appointment to the post of ANMs and Male/Female Multipurpose Health Workers as evident from of Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2, respectively. It is also not in dispute that the post of ANMs and Male/Female Multipurpose Health Workers are in two different Departments of the State Government. ANMs are discharging their duties with respondent No.2, whereas Male Female Multi Health Workers are discharging their duties in the Health and Family Welfare Department of the State Government. It is by now settled in a catena of judgments, ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2026 20:40:24 :::CIS 5 2026:HHC:5577 that classification of posts and determination of pay structure comes within the exclusive domain of the executive and the Courts/Tribunals cannot sit over the .
wisdom of the executive in prescribing the qualification, pay and grade pay in a particular service. For the purpose of grant of same pay scale, the nature of work, duties, accountability and responsibilities attached to the posts and of further, the extent of powers conferred on the persons holding a particular post, the promotional avenues, the rt Statutory rules governing the conditions of service, the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs etc. are to be seen. It is further the function of the expert bodies and the executive and within the realm of the Court/Tribunal.
9. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner is discharging her duties with the Ayurveda (Ayush) Department of the State Government and Male/Female Multipurpose Health Workers are discharging their duties in the Family and Health Welfare Department.
10. The respondents-State, in compliance with the order passed by this Court, in its affidavit have categorically mentioned in para 7 that the duties performed by the Female Health Workers in the Department of Health and ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2026 20:40:24 :::CIS 6 2026:HHC:5577 Female Welfare is of primary healthcare services to women including routine checkups, preventive care and health screening. They assess and manage common health issues .
such as reproductive health, contraception, sexually transmitted infections and menopause. They also play a crucial role in providing prenatal and postnatal care to pregnant women which also includes monitoring the health of of the mother and the developing fetus, conducting regular check-ups, providing education on pregnancy and childbirth rt etc., whereas, the duties performed by the ANMs in the Ayurveda (Ayush) Department is of indoor services round the clock of rotational manner, to provide nursing care to the patients in the hospital etc.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. T.V. L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao, (2015) 3 SCC 653, has held in para 26 as under :-
"26. The classification of posts and determination of pay structure comes within the exclusive domain of the executive and the Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service. There may be more grades than one in a particular service."
12. Not only this, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2026 20:40:24 :::CIS 7 2026:HHC:5577 Association and another, (2023) 19 SCC 482, has reiterated the same principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgment and the .
relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced hereunder:-
"10. Before adverting to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it deserves to be noted that the power of judicial review of the High Courts in the matter of classification of posts and determination of pay scale is no more res integra. It of has been consistently held by this Court in plethora of decisions that equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave rt error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and the interference of the Court was absolutely necessary to undo the injustice.
11. In State of U.P. and Others Vs. J.P. Chaurasia, while answering the questions as to whether the Bench Secretaries in the High Court of Allahabad were entitled to pay scale admissible to the Section Officers and whether the creation of two grades with different scales in the cadre of Bench Secretaries who were doing the same and similar work was violative of the right to have "equal pay for equal work". This Court observed as under: (SCC p. 130, para 18) "18. The first question regarding entitlement to the pay scale admissible to Section Officers should not detain us longer.
The answer to the question depends upon several factors. It does not just depend upon either the nature of work or volume of work done by Bench Secretaries. Primarily it requires among others, evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. More often functions of two posts may appear to be the same or similar, but there may be difference in degrees in the performance. The quantity of work may be the same, but quality may be different that cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2026 20:40:24 :::CIS 8 2026:HHC:5577 interested parties. The equation of posts or equation of pay must be left to the executive Government. It must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission. They would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts. If there is any such .
determination by a Commission or Committee, the court should normally accept it. The court should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration."
12. The aforestated ratio was followed by this Court in Union of India and Others Vs. Makhan Chandra of Roy. Again, in State of W.B. v. W.B. Registration Service Assn., the claim of Sub-Registrars of West Bengal Registration Service claiming parity in pay scale with Munsifs on the basis that Sub-Registrars were conferred gazetted status, was examined by rt this Court. It was elaborately observed in SCC para 12 as under:(SCC pp. 165-67) "12. We do not consider it necessary to traverse the case law on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the appellants as it is well settled that equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like the Pay Commissions, etc. But that is not to say that the Court has no jurisdiction and the aggrieved employees haveno remedy if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction.
Courts must, however, realise that job evaluation is both a difficult and time- consuming task which even expert bodies having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found difficult to undertake sometimes on account of want of relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of employees. This would call for a constant study of the external comparisons and internal relativities on account of the changing nature of job requirements. The factors which may have to be kept in view for job evaluation may include ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2026 20:40:24 :::CIS 9 2026:HHC:5577
(i) the work programme of his department (ii) the nature of contribution expected of him (iii) the extent of his responsibility and accountability in the discharge of his diverse duties and functions (iv) the extent and nature of freedoms/limitations available or imposed on .
him in the discharge of his duties (v) the extent of powers vested in him (vi) the extent of his dependence on superiors for the exercise of his powers (vii) the need to co-ordinate with other departments, etc. We have also referred to the history of the service and the effort of various bodies to reduce the total number of pay scales to a reasonable number. Such reduction of in the number of pay scales has to be achieved by resorting to broad banding of posts by placing different posts having comparable job charts in a common scale. Substantial reduction in the number of pay scales must rt inevitably lead to clubbing of posts and grades which were earlier different and unequal. While doing so care must be taken to ensure that such rationalisation of the pay structure does not throw up anomalies. Ordinarily a pay structure is evolved keeping in mind several factors, e.g., (I) method of recruitment, (ii) level at which recruitment is made, (iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre, (iv) minimum educational/technical qualifications required, (v) avenues of promotion, (vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities, (vii) the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs, (viii) public dealings, (ix) satisfaction level, (x) employer's capacity to pay, etc. We have referred to these matters in some detail only to emphasise that several factors have to be kept in view while evolving a pay structure and the horizontal and vertical relativities have to be carefully balanced keeping in mind the hierarchical arrangements, avenues for promotion, etc. Such a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. It is presumably for this reason that the Judicial Secretary who had strongly recommended a substantial hike in the salary of the Sub- Registrars to the Second (State) Pay ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2026 20:40:24 :::CIS 10 2026:HHC:5577 Commission found it difficult to concede the demand made by the Registration Service before him in his capacity as the Chairman of the Third (State) Pay Commission. There can, therefore, be no doubt that equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter .
which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and Court's interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice."
13. In State of Haryana and Others Vs. Charanjit of Singh, a three-judge Bench in a referred matter considered whether the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work", was an abstract doctrine, and observed thus: (SCC pp. 335-36, para 19) rt "19. Having considered the authorities and the submissions we are of the view that the authorities in Jasmer Singh, Tikal Raj, Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology and Tarun K. Roy lay down the correct law. Undoubtedly, the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a court of law. But equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" has no mechanical application in every case. Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who were left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In service matters, merit or experience can be a proper basis for classification for the purposes of pay in order to promote efficiency in administration. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. The very fact that the person has not gone through the process of recruitment may itself, in certain cases, make a difference. If the educational qualifications are different, then also the ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2026 20:40:24 :::CIS 11 2026:HHC:5577 doctrine may have no application. Even though persons may do the same work, their quality of work may differ. Where persons are selected by a Selection Committee on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority a higher pay scale granted to such persons who are evaluated by .
the competent authority cannot be challenged.
A classification based on difference in educational qualifications justifies a difference in pay scales. A mere nomenclature designating a person as say a carpenter or a craftsman is not enough to come to the conclusion that he is doing the same work as another carpenter or craftsman in regular of service. The quality of work which is produced may be different and even the nature of work assigned may be different. It is not just a comparison of physical activity. The application of the principle of "equal pay for equal work"
rt requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work. There may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. Thus normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. These are not matters where a writ court can lightly interfere. Normally a party claiming equal pay for equal work should be required to raise a dispute in this regard. In any event, the party who claims equal pay for equal work has to make necessary averments and prove that all things are equal. Thus, before any direction can be issued by a court, the court must first see that there are necessary averments and there is a proof. If the High Court is, on basis of material placed before it, convinced that there was equal work of equal quality and all other relevant factors are fulfilled it may direct payment of equal pay from the date of the filing of the respective writ petition. In all these cases, we find that the High Court has blindly proceeded on the basis that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work applies without ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2026 20:40:24 :::CIS 12 2026:HHC:5577 examining any relevant factors."
14. In Union of India v. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao, this Court reiterated the said position: (SCC p. 666, para
26) .
"26. The classification of posts and determination of pay structure comes within the exclusive domain of the executive and the Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service. There ma be more grades than one in a particular service."
of
15. In view of the aforestated legal position, it clearly emerges that though the doctrine "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of Law, the rt equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the Judiciary. The Courts therefore should not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions which undertake rigorous exercise for job evaluation after taking into consideration several factors like the nature of work, the duties, accountability and responsibilities attached to the posts, the extent of powers conferred on the persons holding a particular post, the promotional avenues, the Statutory rules governing the conditions of service, the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs etc."
13. From the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is crystal clear that it is not within the realm of this Court to equate the post and pay scale and the same is within the domain of the executive. Since the post held by the petitioner and those held by the Male/Female Multipurpose Health Workers are in different ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2026 20:40:24 :::CIS 13 2026:HHC:5577 Departments of the State Government and further they are not discharging the same and similar duties, the relief claimed by the petitioner to grant her the same scale as .
given to the Male/Female Multipurpose Health Workers cannot be granted to her. Further, as held above, it is in the domain of executive and not with this Court. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the of qualification for both the posts is same cannot held her entitle to the pay scale of the post of Male/Female rt Multipurpose Health Workers. In case this submission is accepted, then every employee having the same qualification will come to the Court to claim the parity of higher pay scale granted in other Departments. All these things can only be looked into by the executive and this is not within the domain of this Court.
14. In the present case, the petitioner herself has placed on record the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for both the posts and the same are different. As already observed above, merely possessing the same qualification, cannot entitle the employee to claim parity in pay scale, once the duties assigned to both the posts are different as detailed in the supplementary affidavit, which facts have ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2026 20:40:24 :::CIS 14 2026:HHC:5577 not been rebutted.
15. No other point has been urged.
16. Consequently, the present petition being devoid .
of merit is dismissed. However, no orders as to cost.
Pending, applications if any shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
of
03rd March, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj )
(Anurag) Judge
rt
::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2026 20:40:24 :::CIS