2025:HHC:20029 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.5492 of 2019 Reserved on: 20.06.2025 Date of Decision: 26.06.2025 Satish Aumta ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner:     Mr. Adarsh K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pratush   Sharma,   Additional Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge The instant petition has been filed for the following substantive reliefs: “(i) That   the   order   dated   27.5.2015   may kindly be quashed and set­aside to the extent it has   rejected   the   pay   sale   of   Rs. 15,600­ 39,100+5400 grade pay and classifying the post as Class­III instead  of Class­l. The respondent may further be directed to grant the pay scale of Rs. 15,600­39,100+   5400   grade   pay   to   the 2 applicant   from   the   date   the   applicant   is discharging   the   duties   as   a   lecturer   and classifying   the   post   of   lecturer   Medical Laboratory Technology as Class­l. (ii). That the respondent may kindly be directed to place on record the decision dated 23.2.2015, whereby,   the   approval   dated   8.5.2013   by   the council   of   Minster   has   been   withdrawn   after taking on record the said communication dated 23.2.2015;   same   may   kindly   be   quashed   and set­aside.” 2. The petitioner is seeking entitlement to pay scale of Rs.15600­39100 + Rs.5400 Grade Pay in the following factual background: 2.1 Petitioner   was   working   as   Senior Laboratory Technician in the Department of Health   and   Family   Welfare. During   service petitioner acquired higher qualification of MSc Medical Technology (Bio Chemistry) from PGI, Chandigarh and thereafter raised demand for appointment as Lecturer. 2.2 Petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No.6794 of 2010 for direction to 3 appoint him as lecturer. This Court vide order dated 28.10.2010 directed respondent No.1 to consider   the   case   of   petitioner. Respondent No.1 rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that there were no Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post. 2.3 Petitioner preferred another writ petition being CWP No.4604 of 2011 before this Court. During   the   pendency   of   said   petition, petitioner was designated as Lecturer Medical Laboratory Technology (Bio Chemistry) in his own   pay   scale   w.e.f.   15.10.2011. CWP No.4604   of   2011   was   disposed   of   on 18.10.2011   in   view   of   the   designation   of petitioner   as   Lecturer   and   it   was   observed that the petitioner would be entitled to all the benefits   attached   to   the   post   of   Lecturer Medical Laboratory Technology (Bio Chemistry). Further directions were issued to 4 the   respondents   to   frame   Recruitment   and Promotion Rules on or before 31.12.2011. 2.4 The respondents did not implement the   judgment   dated   18.10.2011   passed   in CWP   No.4604   of   2011   in   letter   and   spirit, which  forced   the   petitioner   to  issue   a  legal notice   to   the   respondents. When   the respondents did not implement the judgment despite receipt of notice, the petitioner filed Contempt   Petition   being   COPC   No.245   of 2012. On   receipt   of   notice   in   Contempt Petition,   respondent   No.1  vide  office   order dated 29.06.2012 withdrew the designation of the petitioner as Lecturer Medical Laboratory Technology   (Bio   Chemistry). The   petitioner again had to prefer Civil Writ Petition before this Court (CWP No.5720 of 2012). In the said writ   petition   by   an   interim   order,   the operation   of   implementation   of   impugned order dated 29.06.2012 was stayed. 5 2.6 In the meanwhile, the respondents had assailed the judgment dated 18.10.2011, passed by this Court in CWP No.4604 of 2011 by   filing   Special   Leave   to   Appeal   before Hon’ble   Supreme   Court,   but   the   same   was dismissed on 09.04.2013. 2.7 Thereafter,   the   respondents   decided   to implement   the   judgment   dated   18.10.2011 passed in CWP No.4604 of 2011. 3. The respondent No.1 had created six posts of Lecturer in Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla (for short,   ‘IGMC’)   and   Dr.   Rajinder   Prasad   Government Medical College, Tanda (for short, ‘RPGMC) in the pay scale of Rs.15600­39100 + Rs.5400 Grade Pay. 3.1 Petitioner claimed the same pay scale by submitting a representation, but when he did not receive any response, the petitioner filed another writ petition before this Court being CWP No.8236 of 2013. The said petition was disposed   of   by   this   Court   with   direction   to 6 respondent No.1 to consider and decide the pending representation of petitioner by taking into consideration the factum of creation of six posts of Lecturer in IGMC and RPGMC in the pay scale of Rs.15600­39100 + Rs.5400 Grade Pay. 3.2 The representation of the petitioner was   rejected   by   respondent   No.1 vide impugned   order   dated   27.05.2015. The petitioner was allowed pay scale of Rs.10300­ 34800   +   4200   Grade   Pay. Communication dated   13.05.2013,   whereby   six   posts   of Lecturer were created in IGMC and RPGMC was amended and even to the newly created posts the pay scale of Rs.10300­34800 + 4200 Grade Pay was made admissible. 3.3 The   petitioner   challenged   order darted   27.05.2015   by   filing   OA   No.2481   of 2015   before   the   erstwhile   H.P.   State Administrative Tribunal. After abolition of the 7 Tribunal, the OA filed by the petitioner was transferred   to   this   Court   and   has   been   re­ registered as CWPOA No.5492 of 2019 i.e. the instant petition. 4. Besides other grounds, for claiming the pay scale   of   Rs.15600­39100   +   Rs.5400   Grade   Pay,   the petitioner   has   also   sought   parity   with   the   scale   of Lecturer in Sister Nivedita Government Nursing School IGMC, Shimla and Post Graduate Institute for Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (PGI Chandigarh). 5. The respondents by way of their reply have contested   the   claim   of   the   petitioner. It   has   been submitted   that   the   posts   of   Lecturer   in   Medical Laboratory Technology in the department of Health and Family Welfare were created on 31.07.1980, 03.06.1994 and 07.06.1994 in the pay scale of Rs.700­1200, which was   subsequently   revised   to   Rs.1640­2925   w.e.f. 01.01.1986;   Rs.5480­8925   w.e.f.   01.01.1996   and Rs.10300­34800   +   Rs.3600   Grade   Pay   w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Accordingly,   the   petitioner   on   being 8 designated as Lecturer Medical Laboratory Technology was granted the pay scale of Rs.10300­34800 + Rs.3600 Grade Pay. On the representation of the petitioner to grant him parity with the pay scale offered to the newly created   posts   in   IGMC   and   RPGMC,   the   matter   was taken up with the Finance Department, which advised that there had been no parity/basis for granting higher pay   scale   especially,   when   similar   posts   have   been existing in the lower pay scale. The Finance Department, thus, resolved to withdraw the pay scale of Rs.15600­ 39100 + Rs.5400 GP offered to the newly created posts of Lecturer in IGMC and RPGMC and to grant them pay scale   of   Rs.10300­34800   +   Rs.4200   GP. Council   of Ministers in its meeting dated 13.02.2015 approved the grant of pay scale of Rs.10300­34800 + Rs.4200 Grade Pay to the Lectures in IGMC/RPGMC. 6. Thus, according to respondents, the pay scale of   Lecturers   in   Health   Department   has   been   fixed uniformly for all the nine posts, including three posts of 9 Lecturer   in   Medical   Laboratory   Technology. The petitioner has also been allowed the same pay scale. 7. The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the contents of reply and reiterating the contents of petition. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 9. It is more than settled that the grant of pay scale to a particular category of employees or post is the prerogative of employer. The settlement of pay scale is an expert job, which cannot be substituted by this Court in   exercise   of   writ   jurisdiction. This   Court   can   show indulgence only in those cases where the fundamental right of equality in public employment is shown to have been transgressed or violated. Even for drawing parity between   posts   with   same   nomenclature   in   different departments or organizations as also for attracting the doctrine of equal pay for equal work, there has to be quantified data as to nature of duties, recruitment and promotion   rules,   initial   qualification   and   mode   of selection etc. The principle finds reiteration in LPA No. 10 11 of 2012  titled  as  Principal Secretary Personnel Vs. Partap Thakur decided by Hon’ble Division Bench of   this   Court  vide  judgment   dated   22.9.2014,   after noticing the legal position as under: ­ “11. The Apex Court in Hukum Chand Gupta versus Director   General,   Indian   Council   of   Agricultural Research and others, reported in (2012) 12 Supreme Court Cases 666, held as to how parity can be claimed or granted. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 20 of the judgment herein: 20. …............. There   cannot   be   straitjacket formula for holding that two posts having the same nomenclature would have to be given the same pay scale. Prescription of pay scales on particular posts is a very complex exercise. It requires assessment of the nature and quality of the   duties   performed   and   the   responsibilities shouldered   by   the   incumbents   on   different posts. Even   though,   the   two   posts   may   be referred to by the same name, it would not lead to  the  necessary  inference  that  the  posts  are identical in every manner. These are matters to be assessed by expert bodies like the employer or   the   Pay   Commission. Neither   the   Central Administrative Tribunal nor a writ court would normally venture to substitute its own opinion for the opinions rendered by the experts. The 11 Tribunal   or   the   writ   court   would   lack   the necessary  expertise   to   undertake   the  complex exercise of equation of posts or the pay scales.” 12. The Apex Court in another case titled as State of Madhya Pradesh and others versus Ramesh Chandra Bajpai, reported in (2009) 13 Supreme Court Cases 635, held that the Court has to consider factors like the   source   and   mode   of   recruitment/appointment, qualifications,   nature   of   work,   value   thereof, responsibilities, reliability, experience, confidentiality, functional need, etc. It is apt to reproduce para 15 of the judgment herein: “15. In our view, the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench is clearly   erroneous. It   is   well   settled   that   the doctrine   of   equal   pay   for   equal   work   can   be invoked only when the employees are similarly situated. Similarity in the designation or nature or   quantum   of   work   is   not   determinative   of quality in the matter of pay scales. The court has to consider the factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment, qualifications,   the   nature   of   work,   the   value thereof,   responsibilities,   reliability,   experience, confidentiality,   functional   need,   etc. In   other words, the quality clause can be invoked in the matter   of   pay   scales   only   when   there   is wholesale   identity   between   the   holds   of   two posts.” 12 13. The Apex Court in the case titled as Steel Authority of   India   Limited   and   others   versus   Dibyendu Battacharya,   reported   in   (2011)   11   Supreme   Court Cases 122, has discussed the development of law and the judgments made by the Apex Court right from the year 1968, in paras 18 to 29 of the judgment herein: 30. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that parity of pay can be claimed by invoking the provisions of Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India by   establishing   that   the   eligibility,   mode   of selection/recruitment,   nature   and   quality   of work   and   duties   and   effort,   reliability, confidentiality,   dexterity,   functional   need   and responsibilities and status of both the posts are identical. The functions may be the same but the skills   and   responsibilities   may   be   really   and substantially different. The other post may not require   any   higher   qualification,   seniority   or other like factors. Granting parity in pay scales depends upon the comparative evaluation of job and   equation   of   posts. The   person   claiming parity,   must   plead   necessary   averments   and prove   that   all   things   are   equal   between   the concerned posts. Such a complex issue cannot be adjudicated by evaluating the affidavits filed by the parties. 13 31. The onus to establish the discrimination by the   employer   lies   on   the   person   claiming   the parity   of   pay. The   expert   committee   has   to decide such issues, as the fixation of pay scales etc. falls   within   the   exclusive   domain   of   the executive. So   long   as   the   value   judgment   of those who are responsible for administration i.e. service conditions etc., is found to be bonafide, reasonable, and on intelligible criteria which has a rational nexus of objective of differentiation, such   differentiation   will   not   amount   to discrimination. It is not prohibited in law to have two grades of posts in the same cadre. Thus, the nomenclature   of   a   post   may   not   be   the   sole determinative factor. The courts in exercise of their limited power of judicial review can only examine   whether   the   decision   of   the   State authorities is rational and just or prejudicial to a particular   set   of   employees. The   court   has   to keep in mind that a mere difference in service conditions   does   not   amount   to   discrimination. Unless   there   is   complete   and   wholesale/ wholesome identity between the two posts they should   not   be   treated   as   equivalent   and   the Court   should   avoid   applying   the   principle   of equal pay for equal work. 32. …............. 33. By the impugned order, the respondent has not been granted the post in Grade E­1 but salary equivalent   to   that   of   Shri   B.V.   Prabhakar   has 14 been granted to the Respondent. The order itself is mutually inconsistent  and  contradictory. The representation   of   the   respondent   had   been   for waiving   the   criteria   meaning   thereby   that   the respondent sought a relaxation in the eligibility criteria for the post in Grade E­1. It is evident from the representation itself that the respondent never   possessed   the   eligibility   for   the   post   of Grade   E­1. The   Law   does   not   prohibit   an employer to have different grade of posts in two different units owned by him. Every unit is an independent   entity   for   the   purpose   of   making recruitment   of   most   of   its   employees. The respondent had not been appointed in centralised services of the company. 14. The   Apex   Court   in   Union   Territory Administration, Chandigarh and others versus Manju Mathur   and   another,   reported   in   (2011)   2   Supreme Court Cases 452, held that similarity of designation or nature or quantum of 15. The   Apex   Court   in   the   case   titled   as   State   of Punjab & Anr. versus Surjit Singh & Ors., reported in 2009 AIR SCW 6759, has discussed the development of law right from the year 1960 till 2009. It is apt to reproduce para 30 of the judgment herein: “30. Mr. Swarup may or may not be entirely correct   in   projecting   three   purported   different views   of   this   Court   having   regard   to   the accepted principle of law that ratio of a decision must be culled out from reading it in its entirety 15 and not from a part thereof. It is no longer in doubt or dispute that grant of the benefit of the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' depends upon a large number of factors including equal work,   equal   value,   source   and   manner   of appointment,   equal   identity   of   group   and wholesale or complete identity.” 16. It would also be profitable to reproduce para 13 of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in New Delhi   Municipal   Council   versus   Pan   Singh   &   Ors., reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1705, herein: “13. They, thus, formed a class by themselves. A cut­off date having been fixed by the Tribunal, those   who   were   thus   not   similarly   situated, were to be treated to have formed a different class. They could not be treated alike with the others. The High Court, unfortunately, has not considered this aspect of the matter.” 17. The   Apex   Court   in   a   case   titled   as   State   of Haryana   and   others   versus   Charanjit   Singh   and others etc. etc., reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 161, held that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has no mechanical application in every case. It is apt to reproduce para 17 of the judgment herein: “17. Having considered the authorities and the submissions   we   are   of   the   view   that   the authorities in the cases of Jasmer Singh, Tilak Raj,   Orissa   University   of   Agriculture   & Technology   and   Tarun   K.   Roy   lay   down   the 16 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 cases, make a difference. If the educational   qualifications   are   different,   then also the doctrine may have no application. Even though persons may 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 to seniority a higher pay   scale   granted   to   such   persons   who   are evaluated   by   competent   authority   cannot   be challenged. A classification based on difference 17 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   made   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 regards. 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 18 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 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.” 18. A Division Bench of this Court in a case titled as Roshan  Lal versus  Hon'ble  High Court  of Himachal Pradesh and another, being CWP No. 873 of 1993, decided on 27th October, 1994, held that even if a post of   one   cadre   is   created   in   two   departments   and different   pay   scales   are   granted,   that   cannot   be   a ground to claim parity. In order to claim parity, the writ petitioners   have   to   indicate   that   their   jobs,   duties, responsibilities and functions are similar. In this case, the   Court   has   examined   whether   the   post   of   Book Binder sanctioned in the High Court and Secretariat of the State Government and in other departments are entitled to same pay scale? No doubt, the post of Book Binder was created in all these departments, but it was held that it is for the writ petitioner to plead and prove   that   he   factors   are   similar. This   Court,   after discussing all facts and factors, rejected the plea for grant of parity and the writ petition was dismissed. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of the judgment herein: 19 “Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the petitioner,   we   find   no   justification   in   the submission. It is too much of the employee of the High Court to claim that the High Court should be   equated   with   the   Printing   and   Stationery Department of the State Government. Even on the basis of job, there would be no similarity. The Printing and Stationery Department would have continuous and different varieties of work needing a different type of Book­Binder than the Book Binder in the High Court.” 10. Further, the jurisdiction of this Court on the subject   has   been   elaborated   in   the   judgment   dated 28.9.2023, passed by this Court in CWPOA No. 1007 of 2019 along with connected matters, in following terms: ­ “11. The   scope   of   judicial   review   in   the   matters concerning grant of pay scales, its revision and related issues is 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. G.S.   Uppal   and Others, (2008) 7 SCC 375, it has been held as under:­ 20 “21. There is no dispute nor can there be any to the   principle   as   settled   in   the   above­cited 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 well­settled 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.” 12. Similarly, in Shiba Kumar Dutta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, (1997) 3 SCC 545, Hon’ble Supreme Court  has  deprecated the practice adopted   for   invidious   discrimination   and   denial   of equal treatment by the employers to its employees. 13. Equally   settled   is   the   proposition   that   the decision as to fixation of pay and its revision vis­a­vis 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 21 pay   scales   and   nature   of   duties   as   also responsibilities is on the person claiming such right. 14. 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   dis­ charged; (iii)   The   minimum   qualifications,   if   any,   pre­ scribed 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 respon­ sibilities is on the person claiming such right. The person claiming parity must produce mate­ rial 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 refer­ ring 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 dis­ 22 criminated 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 estab­ lish   that   he   had   been   discriminated against, as the question of parity has to be   decided   on   consideration   of   various facts and statutory rules, etc. The doctrine of   “equal   pay   for   equal   work”   as   en­ shrined under Article 39(d)  of the Consti­ tution 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   re­ cruitment/appointment, the qualifications, the nature of work, the value thereof, re­ sponsibilities, reliability, experience, confi­ dentiality,   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 be­ tween the holders of two posts. The bur­ den of establishing right and parity in em­ ployment 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 23 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 con­ tention. Equation of posts and revision of 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.2000­3500 and Internal Auditors at Rs.1800­3200. The  conclusion arrived at by the ex­ perts/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.” 15. 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 24 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. 16. 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. 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. 25 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   pay­scales   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 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 26 organization and another set of employees   in different organizations, there can be no question of equation of pay scale under this principle.” 17. 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. Noticeably, in the fact of the instant petitions, petitioners have not placed on record any quantifiable data to suggest that by application of requisite parameters, the post of Laboratory Attendant was   equivalent   to   the   post   of   Clerk   or   Junior Technician or any other category of employees for that matter”. 11. The   stand   of   respondents   that   all   the   nine posts of Lecturers, including that of Lecturers in Medical Laboratory Technology have been placed in the same pay scale has remained unrebutted. The petitioner has also been allowed the pay scale uniformly given to all the Lecturers. 12. The petitioner has failed to substantiate his allegation of discrimination. 13. Simply because the Lectures in Sister Nivedita Government Nursing School IGMC, Shimla or in PGI, 27 Chandigarh are paid higher pay scale, cannot entitle the petitioner to claim the same. Every post is governed by the service rules applicable to such posts. The petitioner has also failed to place on record the necessary data to claim parity with the pay scale of Lecturers in Sister Nivedita Government Nursing School IGMC, Shimla or PGI, Chandigarh. 14. In result, I find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge June 26, 2025 (vt)