Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 17.06.2025 vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 17 June, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
2025:HHC:18393 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5984 of 2023 Date of decision: 17.06.2025 Rajinder Parkash. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.
Coram:
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the petitioner : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate.
For the respondents : Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy
Advocate General.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Petitioner seeks redesignation of the post of Junior Accountant held by him and others in Zila Parishad Cadre to that of Accountant on the grounds that (i) Posts of Junior Accountants do not exist in State Departments; and
(ii) Not much financial burden will be put on State Exchequer by such redesignation of posts.
2. Facts.
2(i). Petitioner is presently serving as regular Junior Accountant in Zila Parishad, Shimla. His services were regularized after completion of contractual period of 6 years 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
-2- 2025:HHC:18393 on 21.09.2012. He was accordingly placed in the pay-scale of Rs.5910-20200 + 1900 (Grade Pay).
2(ii). After serving as regular Junior Accountant for a period of about 8 years, the petitioner aggrieved by his designation as Junior Accountant along with some others instituted Rajinder Parkash & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Ors.1, inter alia, seeking relief of redesignation of post of Junior Accountant to that of Accountant. According to the petitioner, the post of Junior Accountant did not exist in any Government department in the State of Himachal Pradesh, therefore, he along with others contended in the aforesaid petition that the designation of Junior Accountant given to them was required to be changed to that of Accountant. The respondents filed reply to the aforesaid petition to the effect that matter regarding redesignation of Junior Accountant to Accountant was under consideration of the Advisory Department. In view of this stand, the writ petition was disposed of with directions to the respondents to take decision regarding redesignation of the post of Junior Accountant in Panchayati Raj Department within four weeks.
The decision rendered in Rajinder Prakash1 is as under:-
1CWP No.6449 of 2020 decided on 30.12.2022.
-3- 2025:HHC:18393 "Learned counsel for the petitioners, fairly admits that with the afflux of time, majority of the reliefs, as claimed by the petitioners in the instant petition, stand granted but only issue with regard to redesignation of post of Junior Accountant to Accountant is hanging in fire. He states that at present, no post of Junior Account exists in any Government department in the State of Himachal Pradesh, as such, decision is required to be taken by the respondents in the case at hand at the earliest.
2. Perusal of reply to the petition filed by the respondents, itself reveals that the matter regarding re-
designation of Junior Account to Accountant is under consideration of Advisory Department. Reply was filed on 4.7.2022 under the signatures of Joint Secretary (PR) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Sine more than five months have passed after filing of reply, this court hopes and trusts that needful shall be done expeditiously by the respondents.
3. In view of above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents. to take a decision with respect to redesignation of the post of Junior Accountant in Panchayati Raj Department, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach this court again if they still remain aggrieved.
4. The petition stands disposed of in the afore terms, along with all pending applications."
2(iii). Pursuant to the above directions, the respondent-
Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department passed an order on 02.03.2023 (Annexure P-4). The claim made by the petitioners in Rajinder Prakash1 was rejected with following reasoning:-
"Presently, there are 12 Junior Accountant working in Zila Parishad Cadre and there Grade Pay is Rs.3600/- and if their post is re-designated to Accountant than their Grade Pay will also be enhanced from Rs.3600/- to Rs.3800/- therefore, budged provision is to be made in Fifth Station Commission for additional Rs.200/- due to which there will be yearly burden of Rs.91,151/- on State exchequer. Accordingly, the Finance Department vide U.O. dated 10.08.2022 has expressed its inability to concur the proposal of the Administrative Department.
-4- 2025:HHC:18393 Keeping in view of narrations made herein above, the matter of re-designation of Junior Accountant to Accountant is hereby rejected."
2(iv). Respondents' refusal to re-designate the post of Junior Accountant, held by the petitioner, to that of Accountant, led the petitioner to institute this writ petition seeking the following substantive relief: -
"i. The Annexure P-4 may be set aside/quashed and the respondents may be ordered to designate the petitioner as Accountant from the due date with all benefits incidental thereof in the pay scale of Rs.10300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.3800/- per month."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are only 12 Junior Accountants, including the petitioner, working in Zila Parishad Cadre. Their Grade Pay is Rs.3600/-. In case, their post is redesignated as Accountant, the only difference will be in their Grade Pay, which would consequently be enhanced from Rs.3600/- to Rs.3800/-. For additional burden of Rs.200/- per month per Junior Accountant, there will be yearly expenditure of Rs.91,151/- on the State Exchequer. Therefore, the Finance Department had unjustly expressed its inability to concur with the proposal of the Administrative Department. That Finance Department should not have rejected the proposal of
-5- 2025:HHC:18393 the Administrative Department for redesignating the post of Junior Accountant to that of Accountant, more so when in State Departments no such post exists.
Learned Deputy Advocate General opposed the plea and submitted that the posts of Junior Accountants do exist in the Zila Parishad Cadre, which are autonomous bodies. Petitioner cannot seek parity between the post of Junior Accountant in Zila Parishads and that of Accountant/Senior Accountant in the Government Departments. Post of Senior Accountant does not exist in Zila Parishads. It is only the post of Junior Accountants which have been created with suitable pay-scales for Zila Parishads on need basis. Duties have been assigned to the concerned Junior Accountants by respective Zila Parishads.
Attention was also invited to the pleadings in the reply to the fact that Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Junior Accountant in Zila Parishads) Rules, 2020, stand notified on 23.12.2020, therefore, the service conditions of the petitioner as Junior Accountant are governed under the aforesaid Rules.
-6- 2025:HHC:18393 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4(i). From the pleadings of the parties, it appears that
on 20.08.2001, a Scheme was notified by the Government for appointment of Kanishth Lekhapal (Junior Accountant) on contract basis. The Panchayat Samitis concerned were required to recruit Kanishth Lekhapal with specific approval of the State Government under Section 135 of Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The petitioner was accordingly appointed as Kanishth Lekhapal.
4(ii). The State took a policy decision on 29.02.2012 to regularize the services of those Kanishth Lekhapal as Junior Accountant in Zila Parishad Cadre, who had successfully completed six years of services on 31.03.2012, in the pay-
scale of Rs.5900-20200 + 1900 (Grade Pay). At the relevant time, Rules were not in place for the category of Junior Accountant. In accordance with the aforesaid policy decision, services of the petitioner were regularized as Junior Accountant in the given pay-scale on 21.09.2012. Petitioner continued to work as Junior Accountant. It was in the year 2020 that the petitioner instituted CWP No.6449 of 2020
-7- 2025:HHC:18393 along with some other similarly situated employees for grant of several reliefs. From the judgment passed in the aforesaid case, it appears that majority of reliefs claimed by the petitioner were granted. Their surviving issue was regarding redesignation of Junior Accountant to that of Accountant.
Upon this issue, taking note of the stand of the respondents that the matter was under consideration, the writ petition was disposed of on 30.12.2022 with directions to the respondents to decide the matter. As noticed above, the respondents vide their decision taken on 02.03.2023 have rejected the petitioner's claim.
4(iii). Petitioner's sole basis for seeking redesignation of his post from Junior Accountant to Accountant, is the ground put forth that not much financial loss shall be caused to the State in the process. That only yearly burden of Rs.91,151/- shall be placed on the State Exchequer after redesignation of their post. This reason for altering the designation of the post cannot be accepted, merely because the financial burden upon the State Exchequer would not be much as alleged by the petitioner, is no ground to change the designation of the post. Similarly, the other ground put forth that post of Junior Accountant is not there in the
-8- 2025:HHC:18393 Government Departments and for that reason the post of Junior Accountant in the Zila Parishads should be redesignated as Accountant, is also not tenable. Post of Junior Accountant exists in Zila Parishad Cadre and it is against this post that petitioner's services were regularized in the year 2012.
4(iv). In P.U. Joshi vs. Accountant General2, the Hon'ble Apex Court declared as under:-
"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 is 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 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/substraction 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 the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee 2 (2003) 2 SCC 632 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 191 at page 639
-9- 2025:HHC:18393 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."
In Union of India vs. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association & Anr.3, the question for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court was whether the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in equating the posts of Junior Design Officers (JDOs) with Civilian Technical Officers (CTOs) and in refixing the pay-scales of JDOs equivalent to that of CTOs in disregard to the settled legal position to the effect that post should not interfere with the complex issues of evaluating the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts and of fixing the pay-scales, which task otherwise is best done by the expert bodies like the Pay Commission. The Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"9. Before adverting to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsels 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 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 error had 3 (2023) 19 SCC 482
-10- 2025:HHC:18393 crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and the interference of the Court was absolutely necessary to undo the injustice.
10. In State of U.P. and Others Vs. J.P. Chaurasia and Others4, 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: -
"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 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."
11. The afore-stated ratio was followed by this Court in Union of India and Others Vs. Makhan Chandra Roy5. Again, in Secretary, Finance Department and Others Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association and Others6, the claim of Sub-Registrars of West Bengal Registration Service claiming parity in pay scale with Munsiffs on the basis that Sub-Registrars were conferred gazetted status, was examined by this Court. It was elaborately observed in para 12 as under: -
12. We do not consider it necessary to traverse the case law on which reliance has been placed by 4 (1989) 0031 SCC 121 5 (1997) 11 SCC 182 6 (1993) Suppl. 1 SCC 153
-11- 2025:HHC:18393 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 have no 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 (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 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 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
-12- 2025:HHC:18393 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 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."
12. In State of Haryana and Others Vs. Charanjit Singh and Others7, 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: -
19. Having considered the authorities and the submissions we are of the view that the authorities in the cases of Jasmer Singh [(1996) 11 SCC 77 :
1997 SCC (L&S) 210 : AIR 1997 SC 1788 : (1997) 2 LLJ 667] , Tilak Raj [(2003) 6 SCC 123 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 828], Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology [(2003) 5 SCC 188 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 645 : (2003) 2 LLJ 968] and Tarun K. Roy [(2004) 1 SCC 347 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 225] 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 doctrine may have no application. Even though persons may do the same work, their quality of work may differ. Where persons are 7 (2006) 9 SCC 321
-13- 2025:HHC:18393 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 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" 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 examining any relevant factors."
13. In Union of India through Secretary, Department of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and Anr. Vs. T.V.L.N Mallikarjuna Rao8, this Court reiterated the said position: -
"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.""8
(2015) 3 SCC 653
-14- 2025:HHC:18393 It is well-settled that classification of posts and determination of pay structure comes within the exclusive domain of the Executive. In the instant case no substantive justification has been shown for changing the designation of the post held by the petitioner from Junior Accountant to that of Accountant. The reason that not much financial burden would be imposed upon the State in case of change of designation, is not enough to alter the designation. Posts of Junior Accountant may not exist in State Departments but they do exist and form part of Zila Parishad Cadre.
Furthermore, the respondents have also notified Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Junior Accountant in Zila Parishads) Rules, 2020 on 23.12.2020, which are in force. The service of the petitioner is governed by the aforesaid Rules. The contention of the petitioner as raised in the rejoinder that he is an appointee of 2006 and therefore, the Rules notified in 2020 do not apply to him, is misplaced. Rules have been framed under Article 309 of Constitution of India and are applicable to the petitioner.
-15- 2025:HHC:18393
5. In view of above, the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted to him. The writ petition lacks merit, hence, is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
17th June, 2025 Judge
(Pardeep)