Hem Raj and Ors. Vs State of H.P

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWPOA No.898 of 2019 Decided on: 18^th April, 2026

¶3

__________________________________________________________ Hem Raj and others ...Petitioners

¶4

versus

¶5

State of H.P. and others

¶6

...Respondents

¶7

Coram

¶8

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioners: Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General.

¶9

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

¶10

By way of present petition, the petitioners have

¶11

prayed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-

¶12

“i) That the action of the respondents to fix the initial pay of the petitioners as Rs.14520/- instead of Rs.16290/in the pay band of Rs.10300-34800/- + Grade pay of Rs.4200/- may kindly be held illegal, unjust, arbitrary and bad in law.

¶13

ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to fix the initial pay of the petitioners as Rs.16290/- in the pay band of Rs.10300-34800/- + grade pay of Rs.4200/with initial pay of Rs.16290/- instead of Rs.14520/with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 01-10-2011.”

¶14

The facts which emerge from pleadings are that the petitioners were initially appointed as Vidya Upasaks against the vacant posts of JBT in the year 2000 and

¶15

1WhetherthereportersofLocalPapersmaybeallowedtoseethejudgment?

¶16

2

¶17

thereafter their services were regularized as JBT in the month of October, 2007. The State of Punjab vide Notification dated 27.05.2009 notified the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 and the respondent-State after following the same issued a Notification dated 26.08.2009, whereby the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 were notified and as per the schedule, the pay was revised.

¶18

The categories of the petitioners were getting the pay scale of Rs.4550-7220/-, which was revised to Rs.591020200 + grade pay of Rs.3000/- with initial pay fixed at Rs.11470/-. Thereafter, the Government of Punjab had issued a letter dated 05.10.2011, whereby the pre-revised scale of pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 was again revised w.e.f. 01.10.2011 and as per this communication, revised pay scale of Rs.5910-20200+3000/- + grade pay of JBTs/ETTs/ Head Teachers,wasrevised to Rs. 10300-34800 + grade pay of Rs.4200/- with initial pay of Rs.16290/-. After issuance of the aforesaid letter, the respondent-State issued Notification on 24.09.2012 (Annexure P-4) and the category of the petitioners, i.e., JBT was granted the revised pay of Rs.1030034800 + grade pay of Rs.4200/- with initial start of Rs.11470/- already existed. However, this pay band and

¶19

3

¶20

grade pay was to be given after two years of regular service taking the date as 01.10.2012.

¶21

The grievance of the petitioners, who are serving as JBTs, is that once the State Government of Punjab had revised the pay scale of the category of the petitioners to pay band of Rs.10300-34800 + grade pay of Rs.4200/- with initial pay of Rs.16290/-, the same should have also been granted to the petitioners. However, the respondent-State instead of granting initial pay of Rs.16290/- granted the petitioners initial start of Rs.14500/-, which is illegal, ultra vires, arbitrary, unreasonable, unconstitutional, unjust and not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶22

It has further been averred that the respondentState is following Punjab pattern in revision of pay and the same is based on the recommendation of the expert body, i.e., Pay Commission and since the respondent-State has not its own expert body, i.e., Pay Commission, it was bound to follow the implementation of letter dated 05.10.2011 giving rerevised pay of Rs.10300-34800+4200 grade pay with initial pay of Rs.16290/- w.e.f. 01.10.2012, as given in the corresponding category of JBTs in the State of Punjab, to the petitioners. The respondent-State had not re-revised the pay

¶23

4

¶24

scale of the petitioners, but issued a Notification dated 24.09.2012 framing the H.P. Civil Services (Category/Postwise revised pay) Rules, 2012 alongwith one Schedule (Annexure P-4). The respondents-State issued a new Notification dated 27.09.2012 (Annexure P-5) granting the petitioners the initial pay of Rs.11470/-, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners.

¶25

The respondent-State filed reply to the petition and pleaded that the State of Himachal Pradesh takes into consideration the Punjab pattern of pay scale with suitable modifications, as the State Government has its own staffing pattern, service conditions or R&P Rules, method of recruitment, educational qualifications, geographical and traditional conditions, natural and the financial resources. There is no legal binding on the State Government to follow Punjab pattern of pay scales. The pay scales notified by Punjab Government are taken only as a preliminary basis for the revision of pay scales of State Government employees. The State of Himachal Pradesh has exclusive jurisdiction to legislate or issue the executive instructions and further laid down the service condition prescribed in the R&P Rules

¶26

5

¶27

notified under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The pay scales are allowed/revised from time to time under the H.P Civil Services Pay Rules framed/notified by the State Government in exercise of the State Government. Further, the pay scales to the employees of the State of Himachal Pradesh are given taking into consideration the Punjab Government pay scales, but it is not blindly followed and further the Punjab Government pay scales are not automatically applicable in H.P. It has also been averred that parity of pay scales and determination of service conditions are exclusively within the realm of the executive. Further each State has its own individualistic way of governance under the Constitution and one State is not bound to follow the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of other State. The general revision of pay scales has taken effect w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and the re-revision of pay scales allowed to certain categories of posts cannot be termed as general revision of pay scales, which is not bound to be followed by the respondent-State.

¶28

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully.

¶29

6

¶30

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that once the State Government had followed the instructions contained in the letter dated 05.10.2011 (Annexure P-3) and thereafter has issued the Notification on 24.09.2012, whereby the pay scale of the category of the JBT, which was earlier granted was revised to Rs.10300-34800/- with grade pay of Rs.4200/-, the initial start ought to have been Rs.16290/- as granted by the Punjab Government, but it has wrongly been granted with initial start of Rs.11470/-. Since there is no expert body, i.e., Pay Commission in the State of Himachal Pradesh, which determines the pay scales, the pay scales being given by the Punjab Government to its employees are generally granted to the employees in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Since the respondents have wrongly or inadvertently granted the initial start of Rs.11470/- and the petitioners were given initial start as Rs.14500/-, the said mistake deserves to be rectified.

¶31

Though the argument raised by the petitioners is very attractive, but the same is rejected for the reason that it is for the State Government to determinethe pay scales and not to follow the pay scales granted by other States. The State of Himachal Pradesh being a separate State is neither

¶32

7

¶33

bound to follow the pay scale granted by the Punjab Government nor by any other States. It is not even the case of the respondents that they have committed the mistake while granting the pay scale with initial start of Rs.11470/-.

¶34

The issue regarding the adoption of every change in the rules and pay scale in the States of Punjab and Haryana by the State of Himachal Pradesh, came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. P.D. Attri and others, (1999) 3 SCC 217 , in which it was held that even if the State, as per policy and practice, had been adopting the same pay-scales for the employees of the Pubjab High Court, it may not be bound to grant same pay scales. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:-

¶35

“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 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

¶36

8

¶37

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.

¶38

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 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 259-1985 by notification dated 23-1-1986 as a result of which redesignation of the posts of Senior Translators 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 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

¶39

9

¶40

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.”

¶41

Thus, even if the State government has adopted the scale and grade pay as granted by the State of Punjab to the category of the petitioners, it was within its purview to grant the initial start and, no infirmity can be found with the said decision. Further, the fixation of pay scale is not in the domain of this Court and it is the function of the executive or expert bodies to prescribe the pay scales, constitution of the post, pattern, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions. The power of judicial review in such matters is very limited as propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.U. Joshi and others vs Accountant General, Ahmedabad and others (2003) 2 SCC 632, wherein it has been laid down that it is within the domain of the executive to prescribe the pay scales, constitution of the post, pattern, prescription of

¶42

10

¶43

qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and the role of the Courts is very

¶44

limited. Relevant para of the judgment reads as under:-

¶45

“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 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.”

¶46

11

¶47

The Hon’ble Supreme Court had again the occasion to deal with similar issue in Union of India vs.

¶48

Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association and another (2023) 19 SCC 482 , and 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 to15 of the judgment are reproduced as under:-

¶49

“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 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.

¶50

11. In State of U.P. and Others Vs. J.P. Chaurasia and Others, 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:

¶51

"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

¶52

12

¶53

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."

¶54

12. The aforestated ratio was followed by this Court in Union of India v. Makhan Chandra Roy. Again, in State of W.B. v. W.B. Registration Service Assn., 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:

¶55

"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 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 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

¶56

13

¶57

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) 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 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

¶58

14

¶59

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."

¶60

13. In State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh, a threeJudge Bench in a e referred matter considered whether the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work", was an abstract doctrine, and observed thus:

¶61

"19. Having considered the authorities and the submissions we are of the view that the authorities in Jasmer Singh, Tilak Raj, 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 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 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 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

¶62

15

¶63

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 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."

¶64

14. In Union of India v. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao, this Court reiterated the said position:

¶65

"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.”

¶66

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

¶67

16

¶68

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.”

¶69

Thus, from the law as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments, it is crystal clear that determination of the pay structure comes within the exclusive domain of the executive and the Courts cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the executive in prescribing pay structure and grade in a particular service. The Courts, therefore, should not enter upon the task of job evaluation, which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions. I nterference by the Court is very limited. In the present case, the respondents as per their reply have clearly stated that the pay scale has been granted to the petitioners as per Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 with initial start of Rs.11470/- which becomes Rs.14500/- in the pay band of Rs.10300-34800 with

¶70

17

¶71

grade pay of Rs.4200/- after two years of service in light of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Category/Post-wise revised pay) Rules, 2012, which is on the higher side and as such no interference is called for by this Court with the said decision of the State Government.

¶72

Consequently, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to cost.

¶73

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶74

( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 18^th April, 2026 Judge (mamta)

Hem Raj and Ors. v. State of H.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hem Raj and Ors. v. State of H.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sansar Chand and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

Dinesh Vs State of Hp

Satya Devi Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Paras Ram Vs Hpseb Ltd.

Onkar Singh Vs State of Hp

Ashwani Kumar and others Vs State of Hp and others