Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 28.07.2025 vs State Of H.P. And Others on 12 August, 2025
2025:HHC:27088 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No. 3016 of 2020 Reserved on: 28.07.2025 Decided on: 12.08.2025 __________________________________________________________ .
Parkash Chand ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
__________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes ______________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Ms. Ritta Goswami, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Komal Chaudhary and Ms. Rekha Thakur, Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge The instant petition has been filed for the following substantive relief:
"a) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the applicant on the analogy of equal pay for equal work, the pay scale of Workshop Instructor i.e. pay band of Rs.10300-34800 + Rs.3600/- Grade Pay as the applicant is discharging the function of Workshop Instructor from the day of his appointment alongwith the designation with all the consequential benefits."1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:28:15 :::CIS2 2025:HHC:27088
2. The petitioner was appointed as Mechanic Motor Driving (for short, "MMD") on contract basis in Government Polytechnic College, Sundernagar, District .
Mandi on 12.01.2004 on initial of the pay scale with 50% D.A. i.e. Rs.3330/- + 50% D.A.
3. The services of the petitioner were regularized on 16.08.2012 in the pay scale of Rs.5910 - 20200/- + 2400 GP.
4. The instant petition has been filed with the grievance that right from the day when petitioner was appointed as MMD, he has been made to discharge the duties of Workshop Instructor. The petitioner has alleged that the educational qualification prescribed for the post of MMD and Workshop Instructor was identical. The petitioner possessed the requisite qualification and, on such premise, the petitioner is seeking direction to pay him the pay scale of Workshop Instructor i.e. Rs.10300 -
34800 + Rs.3600/- GP.
5. In order to substantiate his claim, the petitioner has alleged that he has been discharging the functions and duties of Workshop Instructor by imparting practical ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:28:15 :::CIS 3 2025:HHC:27088 training to the students; the petitioner has been deputed from time to time for examination duties and had also been assigned the job to conduct All India Trade Test .
Examination in Government and Private Industrial Training Institutions.
6. As per petitioner, he had submitted a representation demanding higher pay scale on 25.04.2007 to the Principal, State Polytechnic College, Sundernagar.
The representation of the petitioner was forwarded and recommended by the Director, Technical Education, to the Secretary (Technical Education). It is also the case of the petitioner that he submitted another representation dated 11.11.2013, which was again forwarded by the Principal, State Polytechnic College, Sundernagar, to the Director, Technical Education, H.P. It was informed by the Deputy Controller (Finance & Accounts), Directorate of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training, Himachal Pradesh, Sundernagar vide communication dated 11.12.2014 that the matter regarding revision of Grade Pay of the post of Mechanic Motor Driving including other ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:28:15 :::CIS 4 2025:HHC:27088 similar posts had been submitted to the Government vide letter dated 24.06.2014 and decision was awaited.
7. The petitioner has alleged that despite his .
representations, his grievance has not been redressed, forcing him to file the instant petition.
8. Another specific allegation of the petitioner is that he had teaching load of 16 to 20 hours weekly, besides duty to maintain the laboratory, maintenance of vehicle and giving driving lessons to the students.
9. The respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner. In their reply, the respondents have submitted that as per staff structure in the Workshops in the Polytechnics of the State, there were posts of the Workshop Instructors in the pay band of Rs.10300 -
34800 + Rs3600/- G.P. The Workshop Instructor is the overall Incharge of the respective shops viz., Workshop Instructor Turning, Machining, Welding, Carpentry, Fitting and Foundry for imparting training viz., plan, deliver and evaluate shop instructions and guide the diploma students in the performance of practical tasks and skill exercise and also to evaluate their performance in the Workshop. In ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:28:15 :::CIS 5 2025:HHC:27088 addition, there is one post of Foreman Instructor and above him, there is one overall Incharge of the Workshops in a Polytechnic i.e. Workshop Superintendent, who also .
teaches theory subjects in addition to overall supervision of the Workshops.
10. It has further been submitted that in addition to Workshops, there are various labs and shops in the respective Departments in the Polytechnic College and the Incharge of these shops and labs are the Lecturers of the related subjects who not only teaches the theoretical subjects but also conduct the practical in the aforesaid labs and shops. The posts of various supporting staff have been created for assisting the faculty in these shops and labs and one such post is that of MMD in the pay scale of Rs.5910 -20200 + Rs.2000 G.P. in the Department of Automobile Engineering. The MMD discharges the duties and responsibilities such as providing assistance to faculty in conduct of practicals in Auto Shops Practices (shop in Automobile Engineering Department) as supporting staff of the faculty i.e. Lecturer/Senior Lecturer/Head of Departments besides imparting training practices to the ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:28:15 :::CIS 6 2025:HHC:27088 Automobile students. The duties of the posts of MMD in this manner are stated to be different than the responsibility of Workshop Instructor.
.
11. According to the respondents, there is no wholesome parity of the post of Workshop Instructor (Polytechnic) with the post of MMD (Polytechnic).
12. The respondents have specifically averred that the petitioner has never been assigned the duties of teaching theoretical classes. As per the respondents, due to periodic vacations in the Institutions and engagement of most of the teaching faculty for smooth conduct of Polytechnic Semester Examinations in various Government/Private Polytechnics of the State, services of the petitioner alongwith other staff members viz., Lab Assistants/ Technicians, Hostel Superintendent, Workshop Instructors are utilized for smooth conduct of end semester examination for which they are being paid remuneration by the H.P. Takniki Shiksha Board. The petitioner is also stated to be discharging the functions and duties as a supporting staff for providing assistance to ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:28:15 :::CIS 7 2025:HHC:27088 faculty in conduct of practical's in Autoshop practice, Lecturers/Senior Lecturer/HODs.
13. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder and has .
reiterated the facts stated in the petition besides refuting the averments made in the reply.
14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.
15. Before adverting to the merits of rival submissions, it will be apt to be reminded about the legal position holding the field. In P.U. Joshi and others vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and others (2003) 2 SCC 632, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained the concept as under:
"10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy and within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the Statutory Tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:28:15 :::CIS 8 2025:HHC:27088 avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by .
addition/subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a Government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service."
16. The scope of judicial review in the matters concerning grant of pay scales, its revision and related issues is well defined. The Court should interfere only when the administrative action is palpably unreasonable, unjustified and prejudicial to a section of employees.
::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:28:15 :::CIS9 2025:HHC:27088 Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and others Vs. .
G.S. Uppal and Others, (2008) 7 SCC 375, wherein it has been held as under:-
"21. There is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle as settled in the above-cited decisions of this Court that fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is the function of the Executive and the scope of judicial review of administrative decision in this regard is very limited. However, it is also equally well-settled that the courts should interfere with the administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors."
17. Equally settled is the proposition that the decision as to fixation of pay and its revision vis-a-vis various categories of its employees is exclusive domain of the government. These are the matters to be decided by the experts and it is not for the Court to substitute its own opinion. Similarly, in the cases of parity in pay scales on the basis of nature of duties and responsibilities, it has been repeatedly held that the expert job cannot be undertaken by the Court and in case of any challenge ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:28:15 :::CIS 10 2025:HHC:27088 being made on the ground of disparity the burden of proof in establishing parity in pay scales and nature of duties as also responsibilities is on the person claiming such right.
.
18. In Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jindal and Others, (2019) 3 SCC 547, it has been held as under:-
21. It is well settled that for considering the equation of posts and the issue of equivalence of posts, the following factors had been held to be determinative:-.
(i) The nature and duties of a post;
(ii) The responsibilities and powers exercised by the
officer holding a post, the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged;
(iii) The minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; and
(iv) The salary of the post (vide Union of India and Another v. P.K. Roy and Others.
23. The burden of proof in establishing parity in pay scales and the nature of duties and responsibilities is on the person claiming such right. The person claiming parity must produce material before the court to prove that the nature of duties and functions are similar and that they are entitled to parity of pay scales. After referring to number of judgments and observing that it is the duty of an employee seeking parity of pay to prove and establish that he had been discriminated against, this Court, in SAIL, held as under:-
::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:28:15 :::CIS11 2025:HHC:27088 "22. It is the duty of an employee seeking parity of pay under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India to prove and establish that he had been discriminated against, as the question of parity .
has to be decided on consideration of various facts and statutory rules, etc. The doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" as enshrined under Article 39(d) of the Constitution read with Article 14 thereof, cannot be applied in a vacuum. The constitutional scheme postulates equal pay for equal work for those who are equally placed in all respects. The court must consider the factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment, the qualifications, the nature of work, the value thereof, responsibilities, reliability, experience, confidentiality, functional need, etc. In other words, the equality clause can be invoked in the matter of pay scales only when there is wholesome/wholesale identity between the holders of two posts. The burden 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 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:28:15 :::CIS 12 2025:HHC:27088 Others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (2009) 13 SCC 635)".
31. Though the above arguments of the respondents appear to be attractive, when considered in the .
light of the well settled principles, we find no merit in the contention. Equation of posts and revision of pay scale is within the domain of the Government.
The matter should be left to the discretion and expertise of the Pay Committee and the Government to take the decision on the scale of pay/revision of pay scale by considering the nature of duties and responsibilities. As pointed out earlier, the Pay Anomaly Committee has given elaborate reasons for revising the pay scales of the r Head Clerks at Rs.2000-3500 and Internal Auditors at Rs.1800-3200. The conclusion arrived at by the experts/Pay Anomaly Committee are not susceptible to judicial review and the courts are not to interfere with the decision of the Government which is based on the opinion of the experts."
19. In Punjab State Electricity Board and Another Vs. Thana Singh and Others, (2019) 4 SCC 113, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is for the employer to classify its employees/posts on the basis of qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the posts concerned and to prescribe different pay scales accordingly. Article 14 of the Constitution of India, would ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:28:15 :::CIS 13 2025:HHC:27088 get attracted only if there is discrimination between same set of employees not otherwise.
20. A Division Bench of this Court while deciding .
LPA No. 445 of 2012, vide its judgment dated 21.11.2016 after placing reliance on State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others, Civil Appeal No. 213 of 2013, decided on 26.10.2016, have observed as under:-
"27. However, the aforesaid submissions of the petitioners cannot be accepted in teeth of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh's case supra, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that 'onus of proof' of parity in the duties and responsibilities of the subject post with the reference post, under the principle of 'equal pay & equal work', lies on the person who claims it and it is for him to establish that the subject post occupied by him, requires him to discharge equal work of equal value, as the reference post. For this purpose, the employees concerned with whom equation as is sought should be performing work, which besides being functionally equal should be of same quality and sensitivity.
28. Further, in determining equality of functions and responsibilities, it would be necessary to keep in mind that the duties of the two posts should be of equal sensitivity and qualitatively similar. Differentiation of pay-scales for posts with difference in degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality, would fall within the realm of valid classification and therefore, pay differentiation would be legitimate and permissible.::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:28:15 :::CIS
14 2025:HHC:27088 Therefore, the person holding the same rank/designation but having dissimilar powers, duties and responsibilities can be placed in different scales of pay, and cannot claim the benefit of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.
.
29. It has been reiterated in Jagjit Singh case (supra) that parity in pay, under the aforesaid principal of 'equal pay for equal work' cannot be claimed merely on the ground, that an earlier point of time, the subject post and the reference post were placed in the same pay scale. The principle 'equal pay for equal work' is applicable only when it is shown, that the incumbent of the subject post and the reference post discharge similar duties and responsibilities while claiming parity in pay scales under principle of 'equal pay for equal work' equation in the nature of duties is of paramount importance and there is no comparison between one set of employees in one organization and another set of employees in different organizations, there can be no question of equation of pay scale under this principle."
21 In the instant case, the petitioner has not been able to specify the exact job profile of the posts of MMD.
While confronted with this, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner made reference to the information supplied under Right to Information Act, whereby the respondents had shown inability to declare the specific job profile attached to the post of MMD. In response to a specific question, whether the job profile of MMD was teaching or ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:28:15 :::CIS 15 2025:HHC:27088 non-teaching, it was answered that the information was not available in the institution. The reliance has also been placed on a document i.e. mandatory disclosure made by .
the Government Polytechnic Sundernagar in compliance to the directions in CWP Nos. 8789 and 8781 of 2014, wherein the profile of the post of MMD was shown as teaching.
22. On the other hand, the respondents have refuted the allegation by taking a specific stand that the post of MMD was meant as a supporting staff in the Workshop as also to assist the Lecturers/Senior Lecturers/HODs in imparting practical training and other tasks related to the shop. In response to the document i.e. mandatory disclosure made by the Government Polytechnic, Sundernagar, the respondents have placed on record another document wherein the profile of the petitioner as MMD has been shown as non-teaching/ supporting staff. The respondents have also placed reliance on the norms and standards for Polytechnics (Diploma Programmes) prescribed by AICTE, according to which, the staffing pattern includes following categories:
::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:28:15 :::CIS16 2025:HHC:27088
(i) Principal and teaching staff;
(ii) Workshop staff;
(iii) Technical supporting staff;
(iv) Library, instructional resource production
.
centre and computer centre staff;
(v) Administrative staff;
(vi) Miscellaneous staff including maintenance staff.
23. In the teaching staff cadre as per AICTE norms, the cadre structure is as under:
i) Lecturer;
ii) Senior Lecturer;
iii) Head of Department/Senior Lecturer
(Selection Grade).
iv) Principal.
24. Thus, it is clear that the post of MMD, does not find place in teaching staff cadre of Government Polytechnic. As noticed above, in absence of any specific job profile ascribed to the post of MMD, it is just wishful to compare the functions and duties allegedly discharged by the petitioner with that of the post of Workshop Instructor.
25. From the documents relied upon by the petitioner, what can be made out is that the petitioner has been assigned the job to impart driving training practice to the students. He has been assigned the duties as ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:28:15 :::CIS 17 2025:HHC:27088 Invigilator in conduct of examination. In addition, the petitioner has been deputed to conduct All India Final Trade Test examination in Private Industrial Training .
Institutes. It has also been tried to be shown with the help of certain other documents that in the duty rosters/time table, the petitioner has been shown as member of teaching staff and has been assigned specific duties.
26. Having perused the documents relied upon by the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the contentions raised by the petitioner cannot be said to have been substantiated. Merely because, the name of petitioner finds mention in duty roster/time table doesn't mean that petitioner has acquired the status of faculty.
Rather, it is revealed from the documents that the petitioner's name is always attached with some other teaching faculty member and this substantiates the plea of defendants that the job of petitioner has been to assist the teachers while conducting the practicals or imparting practical training to the students. Even otherwise, it is not the case of petitioner that he is equivalent to a teacher in the Government Polytechnic College.
::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:28:15 :::CIS18 2025:HHC:27088
27. Even if the prescribed qualifications for the post of MMD and Workshop Instructor are considered to be same, that cannot be a ground to assume that the .
petitioner is entitled to parity with the scale of Workshop Instructor.
28. More importantly, it cannot be ignored that the petitioner had joined as MMD on contract basis with the knowledge that the post of Workshop Instructor was different than the post of MMD and attracted higher pay scale. He once made the representation in the year 2007 and thereafter continued to work in Govt. Polytechnic, Sundernagar without any further objections. He belatedly filed the instant petition in the year 2017 that too after having accepted the regularization on the post of MMD, in its own scale, again without any reservation in the year 2012.
29. Noticeably, the second representation submitted by the petitioner in the year 2013, was with respect to the non-revision of the pay scale of the post of MMD, when certain other categories and posts were provided revision of pay scale by the State Government in the year 2012.
::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:28:15 :::CIS19 2025:HHC:27088 That, however, is not the issue raised by the petitioner in the instant case. Though, the petitioner has placed reliance on a communication dated 11.12.2014 from the .
Deputy Controller (Finance & Accounts) Directorate of Technical Education, intimating the pendency of representation for revision of pay scale with the Government, however, the respondents in their reply have specifically stated that such a proposal had been rejected by the Finance Department and had been conveyed to the Principal, Govt. Polytechnic Sundernagar by the Director, Technical Education vide communication dated 12.09.2013.
30. Thus, not only the petitioner has failed to make out a case of parity with the post of Workshop Instructor or in alternatively a case for grant of equal pay for equal work, his conduct has also not been bonafide. He chose to file the instant petition belatedly without any explanation as to why he remained silent for such a long period from 2007 when he made his representation till the date of filing of the petition. In between petitioner had accepted ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:28:15 :::CIS 20 2025:HHC:27088 the regularisation oh his service as MMD in 2012 without any reservation.
31. In light of above discussion, there is no merit in .
the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.
12th August, 2025 (Satyen Vaidya)
(GR) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:28:15 :::CIS