Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

been allowed grade pay of Rs.3600/- with effect from 1.12.2011 and has been allowed pay scale of Rs. 4550-7220 with effect from 1.1.1996 in place of Rs. 3330-6200 in terms of High Court of Punjab and Haryana order.

29. However, having carefully perused the minutes of meeting, Annexure R-4, dated 16.4.2013, this court finds no force in the submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioners, because, if the minutes of meeting of the Expert Committee are read in their entirety, they clearly reveal that the State of Himachal Pradesh nowhere granted benefit of pay revision to the category of petitioners with effect from 1.5.2013 on the basis of judgment rendered by High Court of Punjab and Haryana, rather, it after having taken note of detailed note presented to it, observed that though always there has been parity in the pay scales given to the Senior Laboratory Technician in Health and Family Welfare Department with that of Senior Laboratory Technician in Punjab, prior to judgment passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana but State of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow Punjab pay scales revised /granted from back dates, on the basis of judgment passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Expert Committee has specifically recorded in its finding that the parity/pay scales granted to Senior Laboratory Technician cannot be accepted in its totality and there is no cadre of Chief Laboratory Technician in the Health Department in Punjab.

32. Hon'ble Apex Court, while detailing factors as detailed herein above, categorically held that the burden of proof is on the person claiming parity. Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

"20. Burden of proof on the person claiming parity of pay scale:-
.
Ordinarily, the scale of pay is fixed keeping in view the several factors i.e. (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; and (vii) employer's capacity to pay, etc.
20. Burden of establishing parity in pay scale and employment is on the person claiming such right. There were neither pleadings nor any material produced by the respondents to prove that the nature of work performed by the Sub Fire Officers is similar with that of the Head Clerks and the Internal Auditors to claim parity of pay scale. As pointed out earlier, the burden lies upon the party who claims parity of pay scale to prove similarity in duties and responsibilities. In the writ petition, respondents have only claimed parity of pay scale with those of the employees working under the Punjab Government which was not accepted by the learned Single Judge. Determination of parity or disparity in duties and responsibilities is a complex issue and the same should be left to the expert body. When the expert body considered revision of pay for various posts, it did not revise the pay scale of Sub Fire Officers. When the expert body has taken such a view, it is not for the courts to substitute its views and interfere with the same and take a different view."