2025:HHC:26504 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No. 772 of 2019 Reserved on: 24.07.2025 Decided on: 06.08.2025 __________________________________________________________ R.L. Sharma and others …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes ______________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: “i) That the records of the case may kindly be summoned and examined. ii) The applicants may kindly be ordered to be granted the pay scales at par with their counterparts in Agriculture/Horticulture departments and may be treated alike. iii) Any other order to which the applicants are found entitled to may also kindly be passed in favour of the applicants.” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:26504 2. The petitioners are B.Sc. degree holders in Agriculture/Horticulture. Their initial appointments were as Junior Engineers (Horticulture) in H.P. Public Works Department (HP PWD). 3. A separate cadre of Agriculture/Horticulture Inspectors existed in Agriculture/Horticulture Departments of the State Government. The services of Horticulture Inspectors in the Department of Agriculture/Horticulture were governed by the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (for short’ “R&P Rules) dated 06.08.1973. The essential qualification for appointment as Horticulture/Agriculture Inspector was degree-holder in Horticulture or Agriculture with horticulture as major subject or equivalent. 4. The HP PWD has its own horticulture wing. The HP PWD used to take Agriculture/Horticulture Inspectors on deputation for performing the duties like plantation, floriculture, horticulture, raising ornamental plants and nurseries besides soil conservation. Subsequently, the Public Works Department started engaging their own horticulture experts, designated as Junior Engineer 3 2025:HHC:26504 (Horticulture). The essential qualification for Junior Engineer (Horticulture) were exactly the same as that of the Horticulture Inspector in the Horticulture Department. The R&P Rules for the post of Junior Engineer (Horticulture) were notified in the year 1989. 5. The initial pay scale of Junior Engineer (Horticulture) in PWD and Agriculture/Horticulture Inspectors in Horticulture Department was Rs.700–1200. The pay scale for both the categories was revised to Rs.1800 – 3200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. 6. The post of Horticulture Inspector was re- designated as Assistant Development Officers vide notification dated 27.06.1988. The State Government vide notification dated 24.04.1993 not only further redesignated the post of Assistant Development Officer as Agriculture Development Officer but their pay scale was also revised by integration of the cadres. The entry level scale to the post of Agriculture Development Officers (for short’ “ADOs”) was fixed at Rs.2200-4000 with increase to 3000-4500 after 8 years of service and further to Rs. 3700 – 5300 after 13 years of service. 4 2025:HHC:26504 7. The scale of Junior Engineer (Horticulture) was, however, fixed at Rs.1800-3200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and was revised to Rs.5800 – 9200 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. 8. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have raised the grievance that they have been discriminated vis-à-vis the Horticulture Inspectors, who have not only been promoted in designation, but have been granted the higher pay scale. The petitioners are seeking parity with the ADOs (earlier Horticulture Inspectors) on the grounds firstly, that the essential qualifications for both the posts are equal, secondly, both the categories were placed in the same pay scale initially and lastly, the Horticulture/Agriculture Inspectors were deputed in the Department of PWD on deputation, which was one of the prescribed modes of recruitment in the R&P Rules, 1989. 9. The petitioners have tried to point out that even the nature of duties performed by the petitioners as also the ADOs are same. The petitioners have placed reliance on the information gathered by them under Right to Information Act. 5 2025:HHC:26504 10. Respondents No. 1 & 2 in their reply have contested the claim of the petitioners on the grounds that the petitioners were appointed as Junior Engineer (Horticulture) in HP PWD and not as Horticulture or Agriculture Inspectors. Merely on the basis of educational qualification, the petitioners cannot claim the scale equal to that of ADOs of Agriculture/Horticulture Department. It has also been submitted that the category of Junior Engineers in the HP PWD is occupied not only with the persons having Bachelor’s degree, but by those also who are possessing Master’s degree though the minimum requirement may be Diploma in Engineering. Since, in the HP PWD there is unified cadre of Junior Engineers with equal pay scale, the petitioners cannot claim higher pay scale merely because they possess the degree of Bachelors in Horticulture/Agriculture. 11. Objections as to limitation has also been raised. It is submitted that the pay scale of petitioners and ADOs were made different w.e.f. 01.01.1986 itself, the petitioners filed their representations for the first time in the year 1992-1993 and the instant petition was filed in the year 6 2025:HHC:26504 1997 i.e. after five years of the submission of representations. 12. Respondent No.3 i.e. Department of Finance has filed separate reply and its stand is as under: 12.1 That the petitioners at the time of recruitment were fully aware of the fact about their pay scale and working conditions as well as about the essential qualifications required. It was well within their knowledge that they were going to be recruited as Junior Engineer (Horticulture) and not as Agriculture/Horticulture Inspectors. The petitioners being employees of HP PWD, are required to perform such duties and responsibilities as are assigned to them by the Department. As per respondent No.3, the State Government as a matter of policy is following the Punjab pattern of pay scales in respect of its employees. The category-wise pay scales of the employees are determined by the respective Pay Commission constituted by the Punjab Government. The recommendations of the Pay Commission are examined by the Punjab Government at various levels and such recommendations, which are accepted by the Punjab 7 2025:HHC:26504 Government, pay scales of the employees are revised. Accordingly, on the basis of the orders issued by the Punjab Government, the same are made applicable in the State of Himachal Pradesh in respect of its employees after due consideration and approval of the competent authority. The pay structure formulated by the Punjab Government is not violated by the Himachal Government as such a deviation will affect the entire pay structure having far reaching consequences. 12.2 Though, at one point of time, the pay scale of Junior Engineer in PWD and the Inspectors of Horticulture and Agriculture Departments were identical, but the Punjab Government has allowed the higher pay scale of Rs.2000–3500 to the Inspectors of Horticulture and Agriculture Departments whereas the pay scale of Rs. 1800–3200 was recommended to the category of Junior Engineers in the Department of PWD. Since, the State Government follows the Punjab pattern of pay scales on department to department and post to post basis, as such, the pay scales of the State Government employees have been revised accordingly. 8 2025:HHC:26504 12.3 The Punjab Government further reconsidered the pay structure of the Horticulture and Agriculture Departments during the year 1992 and by clubbing a number of categories in both the Departments, constituted the Punjab State Horticulture Services and Punjab State Agriculture Services and allowed three tier pay structure to these services. The State Government also followed suit and accordingly constituted H.P. Horticulture Services and H.P. Agriculture Services and accordingly, the designation was changed as ADO or HDO as the case may be. 12.4 As per respondent No.3, inter-departmental pay parities cannot be allowed merely on the basis of similar essential educational qualifications and on the ground that at one point of time the pay scale of all these cadres were identical. It has also been submitted that not only the nomenclature but the job profile of the petitioners and the HDO or ADO is different. Every category of employees is required to perform its duties and responsibilities as may be assigned to it. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 9 2025:HHC:26504 14. Before adverting to the merits of rival submissions, it will be apt to be reminded about the legal position holding the field. In P.U. Joshi and others vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and others (2003) 2 SCC 632, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the concept 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 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 10 2025:HHC:26504 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.” 15. The scope of judicial review in the matters concerning grant of pay scales, its revision and related issues is also well defined. The Court should interfere only when the administrative action is palpably unreasonable, unjustified and prejudicial to a section of employees. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and others Vs. 11 2025:HHC:26504 G.S. Uppal and Others, (2008) 7 SCC 375, wherein it has been held as under:- “21. There is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle as settled in the above-cited decisions of this Court that fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is the function of the Executive and the scope of judicial review of administrative decision in this regard is very limited. However, it is also equally well-settled that the courts should interfere with the administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors.” 16. Equally settled is the proposition that the decision as to fixation of pay and its revision vis-a-vis various categories of its employees is exclusive domain of the government. These are the matters to be decided by the experts and it is not for the Court to substitute its own opinion. Similarly, in the cases of parity in pay scales on the basis of nature of duties and responsibilities, it has been repeatedly held that the expert job cannot be undertaken by the Court and in case of any challenge being made on the ground of disparity the burden of proof in establishing parity in pay scales and nature of duties as also responsibilities is on the person claiming such right. 12 2025:HHC:26504 17. In Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jindal and Others, (2019) 3 SCC 547, it has been held as under: - 21. It is well settled that for considering the equation of posts and the issue of equivalence of posts, the following factors had been held to be determinative: -. (i) The nature and duties of a post; (ii) The responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding a post, the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged; (iii) The minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; and (iv) The salary of the post (vide Union of India and Another v. P.K. Roy and Others. 23. The burden of proof in establishing parity in pay scales and the nature of duties and responsibilities is on the person claiming such right. 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 establish that he had been discriminated against, this Court, in SAIL, held as under: - “22. It is the duty of an employee seeking parity of pay under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India to prove and establish that he had been discriminated against, as the question of parity has to be decided on consideration of various 13 2025:HHC:26504 facts and statutory rules, etc. The doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” as enshrined under Article 39(d) of the Constitution read with Article 14 thereof, cannot be applied in a vacuum. The constitutional scheme postulates equal pay for equal work for those who are equally placed in all respects. The court must consider the factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment, the qualifications, the nature of work, the value thereof, responsibilities, reliability, experience, confidentiality, functional need, etc. In other words, the equality clause can be invoked in the matter of pay scales only when there is wholesome/wholesale identity between the holders of two posts. The burden of establishing right and parity in employment is only on the person claiming such right. (Vide U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. and Another v. Sant Raj Singh and Others (2006) 9 SCC 82, Union of India and Another v. Mahajabeen Akhtar (2008) 1 SCC 368, Union of India v. Dineshan K.K (2008) 1 SCC 586, Union of India and Others v. Hiranmoy Sen and Others (2008) 1 SCC 630, Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others (2008) 10 SCC 1, U.P. SEB and Another v. Aziz Ahmad (2009) 2 SCC 606 and State of M.P. and Others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (2009) 13 SCC 635)”. 31. Though the above arguments of the respondents appear to be attractive, when considered in the light of the well settled principles, we find no merit in the contention. Equation of posts and revision of 14 2025:HHC:26504 pay scale is within the domain of the Government. The matter should be left to the discretion and expertise of the Pay Committee and the Government to take the decision on the scale of pay/revision of pay scale by considering the nature of duties and responsibilities. As pointed out earlier, the Pay Anomaly Committee has given elaborate reasons for revising the pay scales of the Head Clerks at Rs.2000-3500 and Internal Auditors at Rs.1800-3200. The conclusion arrived at by the experts/Pay Anomaly Committee are not susceptible to judicial review and the courts are not to interfere with the decision of the Government which is based on the opinion of the experts.” 18. In Punjab State Electricity Board and Another Vs. Thana Singh and Others, (2019) 4 SCC 113, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is for the employer to classify its employees/posts on the basis of qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the posts concerned and to prescribe different pay scales accordingly. Article 14 of the Constitution of India, would get attracted only if there is discrimination between same set of employees not otherwise. 19. A Division Bench of this Court while deciding LPA No. 445 of 2012, vide its judgment dated 21.11.2016 after placing reliance on State of Punjab and Others Vs. 15 2025:HHC:26504 Jagjit Singh and Others, Civil Appeal No. 213 of 2013, decided on 26.10.2016, have observed as under: - “27. However, the aforesaid submissions of the petitioners cannot be accepted in teeth of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh’s case supra, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that ‘onus of proof’ of parity in the duties and responsibilities of the subject post with the reference post, under the principle of ‘equal pay & equal work’, lies on the person who claims it and it is for him to establish that the subject post occupied by him, requires him to discharge equal work of equal value, as the reference post. For this purpose, the employees concerned with whom equation as is sought should be performing work, which besides being functionally equal should be of same quality and sensitivity. 28. Further, in determining equality of functions and responsibilities, it would be necessary to keep in mind that the duties of the two posts should be of equal sensitivity and qualitatively similar. Differentiation of pay-scales for posts with difference in degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality, would fall within the realm of valid classification and therefore, pay differentiation would be legitimate and permissible. Therefore, the person holding the same rank/designation but having dissimilar powers, duties and responsibilities can be placed in different scales of pay, and cannot claim the benefit of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. 29. It has been reiterated in Jagjit Singh case (supra) that parity in pay, under the aforesaid principal of ‘equal pay for equal work’ cannot be claimed merely on the 16 2025:HHC:26504 ground, that an earlier point of time, the subject post and the reference post were placed in the same pay scale. The principle ‘equal pay for equal work’ is applicable only when it is shown, that the incumbent of the subject post and the reference post discharge similar duties and responsibilities while claiming parity in pay scales under principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ equation in the nature of duties is of paramount importance and there is no comparison between one set of employees in one organization and another set of employees in different organizations, there can be no question of equation of pay scale under this principle.” 20. In view of above exposition of law, the defence raised on behalf of the respondents that they have the prerogative and right to classify various categories of its employees for the purposes of grant of pay scales requires to be upheld. 21. Reverting to the facts of the case, the only similarity between the posts of Junior Engineer (Horticulture) in HP PWD and ADOs in the Departments of Horticulture/Agriculture is that both the categories were drawing same pay scale before 01.01.1986 and the essential educational qualifications for both the posts were also same. As regards the job profiles of both the posts, the petitioners have relied upon the information received 17 2025:HHC:26504 under Right to Information Act and placed on record as Annexure S-5. As per the said document, inference can be drawn about the nature of duties of Incharge of Nursery at Parwanoo and not the exact job profile of HDO or ADO. Annexure S-5, only deals with the nature of job performed by HDO while being posted as Incharge of ornamental plant nursery at Parwanoo. Such information cannot be said to be exhaustive on the issue of the job profile of the HDO or ADO. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the comprehensive data even for prima facie comparison of duties of both the posts has been made available to the court. Thus, in the facts of the instant case, the material placed on record cannot be considered sufficient to warrant interference in the decision of respondents. 22. Merely because the pay scale of both the posts was initially same, cannot be a ground for petitioners to seek parity with ADOs. It has been noticed above that the evolution in the Department of Horticulture and Agriculture has taken place for the reasons as explained in the replies of the respondents viz., the adoption of Punjab 18 2025:HHC:26504 Pay pattern and needs/requirements which were department specific. It cannot be presumed that the petitioners at the time of initial appointment as Junior Engineers (Horticulture) in HP PWD could legitimately expect that the cadre or category which they had opted to join would always be equated with the categories of Horticulture Inspector subsequently re-designated as ADO and HDO. 23. Similarly, because the qualification for both the posts is same, cannot be the sole consideration warranting parity between the two categories for all intents and purposes whatsoever. 24. It is also the contention of the petitioners that in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules formulated in the year 1989 for the post of Junior Engineer (Horticulture), one of the modes of recruitment was by deputation from Horticulture/Agriculture Inspectors and thus, it was a clear indicator that both the posts were being considered equivalent. Again, this factor cannot weigh so strongly in favour of the petitioners so as to be sufficient to grant them the relief as prayed in the petition for the reasons 19 2025:HHC:26504 firstly, that it has been disclosed during the course of arguments that in the subsequently amended R & P Rules for the post of Junior Engineer (Horticulture), the mode of recruitment by deputation stands omitted, secondly, the promotion avenues to the post of Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer have been made available to the Junior Engineer (Horticulture) and lastly, by the evolutionary change in the Departments of Horticulture and Agriculture by creation of Himachal Horticulture Services and Himachal Agriculture Services, the scope and ambit of both the categories has substantially changed. 25. In light of above discussion, the petitioners have not been able to make out a case of parity with the ADOs in the Departments of Horticulture and Agriculture. In result, the petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. 26. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. 6th August, 2025, (Satyen Vaidya) (GR) Judge