Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

- 43 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] 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 of Court of Punjab and Haryana. Expert Committee has specifically recorded in rt 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.

18(ii-c). Similar principle of law that a party who claims parity must plead and proved similarity and parity by placing material on record, has been outlined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board and another versus Thana Singh and others, (2019) 4 SCC 113, in the following terms:

19. 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

- 79 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] 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, of respondents have only claimed parity of pay scale with those of the employees rtworking 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.

of the State."

Therefore, the daily rated employees of the Board cannot as a matter of right claim the parity of pay scales with the Government employees.

of In the backdrop of the mandate of law in the case of Rajesh Pravinchandra Rajyaguru, two rt distinct and separate entities within a state cannot ipso-facto claim equation-parity unless the decision is adopted. In the instant case, there is nothing on record that the petitioner-State Authorities had adopted the revised pay scales prescribed by the State of Punjab and in the absence of any express adoption, the Impugned order (Annexure P-1), inferring parity or equation in favour of Respondents