Himachal Pradesh High Court
Nek Ram And Others vs State Of H.P And Others on 17 March, 2026
( 2026:HHC:7380 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWPOA No.1556 of 2019
Reserved on: 02.03.2026
Decided on: 17th March, 2026
.
Nek Ram and others .......Petitioners
versus
State of H.P and others ...Respondents
Coram
of
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioners: Mr.Hamender Singh Chandel,
Advocate.
rt
For the respondents: Mr.Sikander Bhushan, Deputy
Advocate General.
Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge
By way of present petition, the petitioners have prayed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-
"i) That the pay scale of petitioners may be ordered to be revised from Rs. 950-1800 to Rs. 3330-6200 instead of Rs. 3120-5150 with effect from 1.1.1996 and further pay revision may also be ordered to be made on the basis of pay fixation with effect from 1.1.1996.
ii) That the arrears on account of the pay revision may be ordered to be released to the petitioners with interest at the rate of 12% per annum."
2. As per pleadings in the writ petition, petitioner No.1 initially appointed as Weaving Master with the respondent-State, who joined his duties on 11.03.1981.
Petitioner No.2 was appointed as Weaving Instructor, who 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2026 20:33:27 :::CIS( 2026:HHC:7380 ) 2 joined his duties on 12.12.1981 and petitioner No.3 was appointed as Carpenter Master, who joined his duties on 25.10.1997. Later on as per Notification dated 22.11.1995 .
(Annexure P-2), the aforesaid categories against which the petitioners were working were re-designated as Junior Technician (Weaving Master/Instructor) and Junior of Technician (Carpenter Master). Vide Notification dated 19.05.1998 issued by the Punjab Government, the pay-scales of various categories were revised and the pay-scale of rt Technical Masters was revised from Rs.950-1800/- to Rs.3330-6200/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
3. It has been averred in the petition that the State Government of H.P. has taken a policy decision to adopt the pay-scales as admissible to the employees of Punjab Government and pursuant to the revision of pay-scale w.e.f 01.01.1996, the pay-scale of petitioners was revised from Rs.950-1800/-to Rs.3120-5160/- as per (Annexure P-4).
4. The pay-scale of Technical Masters in the Department of Prisons in the State of Punjab was Rs.950- 1800/- (pre-revised) and the pay scale of Weaving Master/Instructor and Carpenter Master was also Rs.950- 1800/- (pre-revised). Since the petitioners were not allowed ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2026 20:33:27 :::CIS ( 2026:HHC:7380 ) 3 the pay-scale as admissible to their counterparts in the State of Punjab, they made representation dated 02.08.2002 (Annexure P-6), requesting therein to revise their pay from .
Rs.950-1800/- to Rs.3330-6200/- instead of Rs.3120-5160/-
with effect from 01.01.1996. Acting on the representation of the petitioners, respondent No.2 submitted various letters to of respondent No.1, whereby the case of the petitioners was found to be genuine and requested respondent No.1 to notify the revised pay-scale of Rs.3330-6200/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996, rt instead of pay-scale of Rs.3120-5160/-. Despite making request by respondent No.2, respondent No.1 kept on assuring that the grievance of the petitioners shall be redressed. Lastly, respondent No.2 vide communication dated 19.07.2012 (Annexure P-10) had written to respondent No.1 to get the revised pay-scale of the petitioners from Rs.3330- 6200/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
5. The petitioners have pleaded in the petition that there are only three/four persons working in the Department of Prisons, who will be benefited in case the anomaly is removed, as there was no other person working against the aforesaid category of Technicians. It has been pleaded that respondent No.2 had justified the demand raised by the ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2026 20:33:27 :::CIS ( 2026:HHC:7380 ) 4 petitioners to be legal and justified and thus, there was no justification on the part of respondent No.1 to delay the issuance of Notification with regard to revision of pay-scale .
w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and further revision of pay scale w.e.f.
01.01.2006.
6. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed reply to the of petition and pleaded that the petition is bad for non-joinder of parties since the Finance Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh had not been impleaded as necessary rt party. The matter regarding grant of pay-scale of Rs.3330- 6200/- instead of Rs.3120-5160/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 is already under consideration of the State Government and hence the petitioners have no cause of action to file and maintain the petition.
7. It was further averred in the reply that the petitioners had not represented correctly the designation and date of joining of petitioner No.2. The pay-scale of the Technical Masters working in the Prisons Department of Himachal Pradesh, consequent upon the revision of pay-scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 was revised from Rs.950-1800/- to Rs.3120-5160/-. The matter regarding grant of revised pay-
scale of Rs.3330-6200/-, instead of Rs.3120-5160/- on the ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2026 20:33:27 :::CIS ( 2026:HHC:7380 ) 5 Punjab pattern was taken up with the Finance Department, who had advised to seek clarification from the State of Punjab on the point that which categories of employees have been .
clubbed and re-designated as 'Technical Masters' in jail Department. It was submitted that only petitioner No.3 namely, Chet Ram Junior Technician (Carpenter Master) and of another Junior Technician (Carpenter Master) Sh. Birbal Singh, who were appointees in the Prisons Department of Himachal Pradesh after 01.01.1996 i.e. on 25.10.1997 and rt 19.11.1997, respectively will be benefited by the grant of pay-
scale of Rs.3330-6200/-, instead of Rs.3120-5160/- on Punjab pattern. Hence, the financial implications involved have also been intimated to the Government vide letter dated 23.10.2009 (Annexure R-13). The petitioners on completion of the required service in the cadre have already been benefited under the old Assured Career Progression scheme.
8. This Court vide order dated 12.08.2014 had impleaded the Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh as party respondent, who filed separate reply to the petition.
9. Respondent No.3 has taken a stand that the State of Himachal Pradesh takes into consideration Punjab pattern ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2026 20:33:27 :::CIS ( 2026:HHC:7380 ) 6 of pay-scales, based on the recommendations of the Punjab Pay Commission, while examining the pay-scales in the State as this State Government has its own staffing pattern, service .
or Recruitment and Promotion Rules, method of recruitment, prescribed educational qualifications, geographical and traditional/territorial conditions, natural and financial of resources. The State Government is not legally bound to follow Punjab pattern of pay-scales. The pay-scales notified by the Punjab Government are taken only as the basis for rt revision of pay-scales of State Government employees.
10. It has been stated that as per judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.U. Joshi and others vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and others, 2003 (2) SCC 632 and the other judgments, the determination of service conditions are exclusively within the realm of the executive Government and granting of pay-scales is the prerogative of the Government.
11. The petitioners have filed rejoinder controverting the stand taken by respondent No.3. It has been pleaded that the category of petitioners is at par with the Technical staff of the Prisons Department in Government of Punjab and their pay-scale was revised from Rs.950-1800/'- to Rs.3330-6200/-
::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2026 20:33:27 :::CIS( 2026:HHC:7380 ) 7 . The post of Technical Master in Punjab is same and similar to that of Junior Technician, against which, the petitioners were appointed. Unnecessary confusion has been created by .
the Department as the posts of Weaving Master/Instructor, Tailor and Carpenter Master were brought under one category i.e. Junior Technician and in Prisons Department of of Government of Punjab.
12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Deputy Advocate General for the rt respondents-State and also perused the record.
13. It is not in dispute that the State of Himachal Pradesh has its own Recruitment and Promotion Rules. It is settled law that one State is not bound to follow the rules and regulations as are applicable to the employees working in the other State or in the State of Punjab. Even if the State Government adopts the same rules and regulations framed by the other States or State of Punjab, it is not necessary for the State of H.P. to follow the same pay-scales granted to the same category of employees in other States including the State of Punjab.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. P.D. Attri and others (1999) 3 SCC 217 has ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2026 20:33:27 :::CIS ( 2026:HHC:7380 ) 8 held that even if 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 High Court, it may even not follow to grant same pay-scales. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:-
of "5. The case of the respondents is not based on any Constitutional or any other legal provisions when they claim parity with the posts similarly designated in the Punjab & Haryana High Court and their pay-scales from the same date. They do not allege any violation of rt 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 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 whether the State of Himachal Pradesh has to follow every change brought in the States of Punjab & Haryana in regard to the rules and regulations applicable to the employees in the States of Punjab & 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' has 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. Himachal Pradesh, to begin with, was a Union Territory and was ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2026 20:33:27 :::CIS ( 2026:HHC:7380 ) 9 given the status of full statehood in 1970. Since employees of the composite States of Punjab were taken in various Departments 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 portion of its Rules from 25- 9-1985 by notification dated 23-1-1986 as a result of which redesignation of the posts of Senior Translators of and Junior Translators were equated to the posts in the Punjab Civil Secretariat, in 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 rt 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, the 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 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 the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Himachal Pradesh High Court and also as to the mode of their recruitment/placement in the service. Moreover, any change in the pay-scale following 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."
::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2026 20:33:27 :::CIS( 2026:HHC:7380 ) 10
15. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.U. Joshi and others vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and others (2003) 2 SCC 632 has held 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 of 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 rt 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/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."::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2026 20:33:27 :::CIS
( 2026:HHC:7380 ) 11
16. Once the respondents-State had not revised the pay-scale of the category of the petitioners, as were granted to their counterparts in the State of Punjab by taking into .
consideration the Punjab pattern of pay-scales while granting the revised pay-scale, this court cannot give directions to the respondents-State to grant the same pay-scale. It is now well of settled in catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that so far as the grant of pay-scale is concerned, it is the exclusive domain of the executive and the power of the Court rt to give directions to pay the particular scale is only if there is violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association and another (2023) 19 SCC 482, has reiterated the same view and power of the Court of judicial review and held that the classification of post and determination of pay-scale is the job of expert bodies and not of the Court. The relevant paras 10 to 15 of the judgment are reproduced as under:-
"10. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2026 20:33:27 :::CIS ( 2026:HHC:7380 ) 12 come to a firm conclusion that a grave 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 and Others1, 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 of 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 rt 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 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 duties and responsibilities of posts. If there is any such determination by a Pay Commission. They would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was Commission or Committee, the court should normally accept it. The court made with extraneous consideration."
12. The aforestated ratio was followed by this Court in Union of India v. Makhan Chandra Roy³. Again, in State of W.B. v. W.B. Registration Service Assn. 4, 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 this Court. It was elaborately observed in SCC para 12 as under:
::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2026 20:33:27 :::CIS( 2026:HHC:7380 ) 13 "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 have no remedy if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction. Courts must, however, realise that job evaluation is both a of 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 e of want of relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different rt 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 f 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 coordinate with other Departments, etc. We have also referred to the history of the service and the effort of various bodies to reduce the total g 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, (i) level at which recruitment is made,
(iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre, (iv) ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2026 20:33:27 :::CIS ( 2026:HHC:7380 ) 14 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 of 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) rt 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."
13. In State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh, a three-
Judge Bench in a e 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 Jasmer Singh, Tilak Raj¹, 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 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2026 20:33:27 :::CIS ( 2026:HHC:7380 ) 15 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 then also the doctrine may have no application. Even though persons may cases, make a difference. If the educational of qualifications are different, 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 b to seniority a higher pay scale granted to such persons who are evaluated by rt 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 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2026 20:33:27 :::CIS ( 2026:HHC:7380 ) 16 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 f 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."
14. In Union of India v. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao, this Court reiterated the said position:
"26. The classification of posts and determination of 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 rt particular service."
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 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."
18. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that once respondent No.2 had recommended to respondent No.1, as is evident from perusal of communication dated 19.07.2012, respondent No.1 ought ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2026 20:33:27 :::CIS ( 2026:HHC:7380 ) 17 to have granted the said scale. However, the said contention is also rejected for the reason that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association and .
another's case (supra) has held that if noting made by the officers of the Department recommending a particular scale is merely an expression of opinion by a particular officer and by of no stretch of imagination, such noting could be treated as a decision of the Government.
19. Since the scope of the interference of this Court is rt very limited in such like matters, the plea raised by the petitioners to grant them pay-scale on the analogy of their counterparts in the Punjab Government, cannot be acceded to.
20. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. However, with no orders as to cost.
21. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj )
March 17, 2026 Judge
(naveen)
::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2026 20:33:27 :::CIS