[2025:HHC:46516-DB] IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No: 372 of 2017 along with CWP No. 776, 1058, 1243, 1592, 1593, 1848, 1870 of 2017 and CWPOA No 6663 of 2020. Decided on: 24.06.2025 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 372 of 2017 State of Himachal Pradesh & others ...Petitioners Versus Narinder Singh and others ….Respondents __ 2. CWP No. 776 of 2017 State of Himachal Pradesh & others ...Petitioners Versus Ashok Kumar & others ….Respondents 3. CWP No. 1058 of 2017 State of Himachal Pradesh & others ...Petitioners Versus Sher Singh Rana ….Respondent 4. CWP No. 1243 of 2017 State of Himachal Pradesh & others ...Petitioners Versus Chamel Singh and others ….Respondents 5. CWP No. 1592 of 2017 State of Himachal Pradesh & others ...Petitioners Versus Paramjeet Singh ….Respondent [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 2 - 6. CWP No. 1593 of 2017 State of Himachal Pradesh & others ...Petitioners Versus Kuldeep Singh ….Respondent 7. CWP No. 1848 of 2017 State of Himachal Pradesh & others ...Petitioners Versus Bhader Singh and others ….Respondents 8. CWP No. 1870 of 2017 State of Himachal Pradesh & others ...Petitioners Versus Baldev Raj and others ….Respondents 9. CWPOA No. 6663 of 2020 Raj Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others ….Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. Yes. For the petitioner-State: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General For the Respondents: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Ms. Babita Original applicants- Chauhan & Mr. Abhyendra Employees Gupta, Advocate. Ranjan Sharma, Judge State of Himachal Pradesh, being the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 3 - petitioner, has come up before this Court assailing the orders dated 30.06.2016 [Annexure P-1] passed by Learned State Administrative Tribunal [referred to as the Tribunal] directing the State Authorities to grant the pay scale of Rs. 5910-20200 and grade pay of Rs 2400/-with initial start of Rs 9880/-; and pay scale of Rs 5910-20200 and grade pay of Rs 2800/-with initial start of Rs.11170/-; and pay scale of Rs 10300-34800 and grade pay of Rs 3200/-with initial start of Rs 13500/-to the Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees, at par with their counterparts in the State of Punjab w.e.f. 01.10.2012, within three months. 2. Since the issue involved is pari-materia and as agreed to by Learned Counsels therefore, all these cases are taken up for adjudication together by a common judgement by treating CWP No 372 of 2017, State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Narinder Singh and others, as the “Lead Case”. FACTUAL MATRIX IN OA No 1076 of 2015 BY ORIGINAL APPLICANTS-RESPONDENT EMPLOYEES BEFORE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL: [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 4 - 3. In OA No 1076 of 2015, the Respondents -Original Applicants-Employees, have set up a case that they are Pump Operators in Irrigation and Public Health Department [now Jal Shakti Vibhag] in the State of Himachal Pradesh ; and prior to 01.01.2006, the Junior Technicians were given the pay scale of Rs 3120-5160 and the Technician Gr-II were given the pay scale of Rs 4020-6200 and the Technician Gr-I were given the pay scale of Rs 4550-7220 and after revision of pay scales w.e.f 01.01.2006, the Junior Technicians were given the revised pay scale of Rs 5910-20200 and grade pay of Rs 1900 ; and Technician Gr-II were given revised pay scale Rs 5910-20200 and grade pay of Rs 2400 and Technician Gr-I were given revised scale of Rs 5910-20200 and grade pay of Rs 3000 w.e.f. 01.01.2006. It is averred that though the State of Punjab had given these revised pay scale for the Technicians w.e.f 01.01.2006 yet, the State of Punjab issued a communication on 23.12.2011, re-revised pay scale of Technicians w.e.f. 01.12.2011 whereby, Junior Technicians, were given re-revising [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 5 - pay band of Rs 5910-20200 and grade pay of Rs 2400 with initial start of Rs 9880 ; and the Technician Grade-II were given the rerevised pay band of Rs 5910-20200 and grade pay of Rs 2800 with initial start at Rs 11170 and Technician Grade-I were given re-revised pay band of Rs 10300-34800 and grade pay of Rs 3200 with initial pay of Rs 13500 as per the aforesaid communication dated 23.12.2011 w.e.f. 01.12.2011. In this background, the plea of Original Applicants before the Tribunal was that once the Technicians in State of Punjab were given re-revised pay scale with higher initial start as per the communication dated 23.12.2011 w.e.f. 1.12.2011 and the case of Original Applicants was forwarded to the State Authorities on 25.11.2013 [at page 53 of paper book] for taking up the matter with the Finance Department and to convey a decision at the earliest. It is further averred that the State Employees Union and the State Government had entered into an agreement that State of Himachal Pradesh shall extend the same pay scale as are [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 6 - applicable and granted to corresponding employees in the State of Punjab. It is averred that since no action was taken on the representation, therefore, the Original Applicants had approached the State Administrative Tribunal, with the following prayer:- (a). That the respondents may be ordered to follow the Punjab Pattern of Pay scale qua applicants as per the recommendations made by the Engineer-in-Chief, I & PH Department and the benefits incidental thereof, from the due date, any be ordered to be given to the applicants. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES BEFORE LEARNED TRIBUNAL IN OA No 1076 OF 2015: 4. In Reply to OA No 1076 of 2015, the State Authorities took a specific stand that the pattern of pay scales as granted to employees in the State of Punjab is not applicable to the employees in the State of Himachal Pradesh including the Original Applicants. It is further averred that no agreement was executed by the State Government with the Employees’ Union, as alleged in the Original Application. It is further averred that as per Entry No. 41 in State List-II of Schedule 7 read with Article 309 of the Constitution of India, every State is competent and empowered to prescribe conditions [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 7 - of service for its employees and therefore, the State of Himachal Pradesh had issued a notification on 24/27.09.2012 giving the re-revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.10.2012 [Annexure R-1] to its employees. It is averred that grant of pay scale originates from a policy decision which is based on staffing pattern, administrative requirement and financial resources of the State and there is no constitutional and legal obligation on the State of Himachal Pradesh to follow Punjab pattern of pay scales, ipso-facto to employees in Himachal Pradesh. It is averred that the State of Himachal Pradesh has a distinct legal entity and is not bound to follow pay scales or other incentives as are granted to its employees by State of Punjab. It is averred that the pay scale existing in State of Punjab cannot be automatically granted to employees in State of Himachal Pradesh. It is averred that no employee in State of Himachal Pradesh has a vested right to claim the pay scales existing in the State of Punjab. Reply-Affidavit states that the State of Himachal Pradesh issued the Himachal Pradesh Civil [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 8 - Services [Category/Post wise Revised Pay] Rules 2012 [referred to as Re-revised Rules of 2012] under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India on 24.09.2012 and the Finance Department notified the Schedule to these Rules on 27.09.2012 by giving revised pay scales for Technicians {Junior Technicians, Technician Gr-II and Technician Gr-I} whereby, the Junior Technicians were given re-revised scale of Rs 5910-20200 and grade pay of Rs 2400 w.e.f. 01.10.2012 and this re-revised scale [based on pay band and grade pay] was to be given after two years of regular service. In case of Technician Grade-II, they were given the re-revised scale of Rs 5910-20200 and grade pay of Rs 2800 w.e.f. 01.10.2012 and Technician Grade-I were given re-revised scale of Rs 10300-34800 and grade pay of Rs 3200 w.e.f. 01.10.2012 after two years of regular service. Reply-Affidavit states that even the Finance Department has reiterated on 29.05.2014 [Annexure R-II], for granting re-revised pay scales to Technicians based on [minimum of pay band and grade pay] after two years of regular service, as [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 9 - referred to above. Reply-Affidavit further indicates that the Original Applicants joined service under the State Government as Junior Technician on contract and they were regularized as Junior Technician in May 2013 and after completion of two years regular service, the Original Applicants would be given the higher pay as per State Rules of 2012, on completion of 2 years of regular service from Rs 5910-20200 +1900 GP to Rs 5910-20200 + Rs 2400/-GP w.e.f. 01.10.2012 or thereafter. In above background, the State Authorities have prayed for dismissal of the original application. NO REBUTTAL BY ORIGINAL APPLICANTS IN OA No 1076 OF 2015: 5. Perusal of the case records of O.A. No. 1076 of 2015 indicates that the Original Applicants chose not to file any rejoinder to the Reply-Affidavit filed by the State Authorities before the Learned Tribunal. IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.06.2016 PASSED BY LEARNED TRIBUNAL IN OA No 1076 OF 2015: 6. The Original Application filed in the Lead [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 10 - Case and other connected cases were allowed by Learned Tribunal on 30.06.2016, {Annexure P-1} with {referred to as Impugned Order} directing the State Authorities to grant the pay scale of Rs 5910-20200 and grade pay of Rs 2400/- with initial start of Rs 9880/-; and the pay scale of Rs 5910-20200 and grade pay of Rs 2800/- with initial start of Rs 11170/-; and the pay scale of Rs 10300-34800 and grade pay of Rs 3200/-with initial start of Rs 13,500/-to the Original Applicants-Employees at with their counterparts in State of Punjab w.e.f. 01.10.2012; firstly, in view of the findings recorded in Para No 7 of the Impugned Order that the functions, responsibilities and duties of the Original Applicants are more than their counterparts in State of Punjab and therefore, benefit of re-revised scale is granted ; and secondly, the findings recorded in Para 9 that once the counterparts in State of Punjab have been discharging the same duties and were given the re-revised scale and there is no cogent reason not to grant the benefit of re-revised pay scale with higher initial start to the Original [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 11 - Applicants in the State of Himachal Pradesh, and therefore, the State Authorities were directed to extend /grant re-revised pay scale with higher initial start to the Original Applicants who are Pump Operators -Technicians in State of Himachal Pradesh w.e.f. 01.10.2012 and thirdly, the findings recorded in Para No. 10 that since the anomaly in pay scale existed between the Original Applicants-Technicians in the State of Himachal Pradesh vis-à-vis the counterpart Technicians in State of Punjab and therefore, the non-redressal of anomaly was held to be irrational and unjust. The operative part of the Impugned Order dated 30.06.2016, {Annexure P-1}, reads as under: 7. The learned counsel for the applicants had taken us through notification dated 26.08.2009. The Junior Technicians, Technicians Grade-II and Technicians Grade -I were placed in the same pay band initially, that is, Rs. 5910-20200 with grade pay of Rs 1900, Rs 2400 and Rs 2800 respectively. The pay band of Junior Technicians was revised with higher pay and higher grade pay. The higher grade pay indicates discharging of higher functions, responsibilities and duties. The duties being discharged by the applicants are [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 12 - more responsible. The State Government has to ensure that the decision are taken fairly for grant of pay scale. 9. The State Government, in case, there is any disparity, anomaly and discrimination in the pay scale, is required to redress the same at the earliest. In the present case also, since the pay scale of Rs 5910-20200 and grade pay of Rs. 2400 with initial start of Rs 9880/- has granted to the Junior Technician Rs 5910-20200 and grade pay of Rs 2800. With initial start of Rs 11170/- to Technicians Grade-II and pay scale of Rs 10300-34800 Technicians Grade-I in State of Punjab there was no occasion to decline such pay scales to the applicants. The applicants are discharging the same duties which are being discharged by their counterpart and are thus entitled to the same pay band and grade pay. There are no cogent reasons assigned by the respondents, why the applicants were not granted pay scale of Rs. 5910-20200 with grade pay of Rs. 2400 with initial start of Rs. 9880/-Rs5910-20200 with grade pay of Rs. 2800 with initial start of Rs 11170/-and pay scale of Rs 10300- 34800 with grade pay of Rs 3200/- with initial start of Rs 13500/-with effect from 01.10.2012. The decision of the respondents not to grant pay scales of Rs. 5910-20200 with grade pay of Rs 2400, Rs 5910-20200 with grade pay of Rs.2800 and pay scale of Rs 10300-34800 [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 13 - with grade pay of Rs 3200/- with effect from 01.10.2012 to the applicants is arbitrary. 10. The State Government while adopting and implementing pay scale of Punjab pattern should ensure reasonableness. The State Government is not under obligation to accept the same for its employes as are applicable to the State of Punjab. The State Government being principal employer should ensure that the pay scale are fixed on the basis of duties discharged by the employees, The State of Punjab gave higher pay scales to Junior Technicians, Technicians Grade-II and Technicians Grade-I. The decision of the State Government not to remove anomaly in the scales was patently irrational and unjust. 11. Accordingly, all the original applications are allowed and the respondents are directed to grant pay scales of Rs 5910- 20200 and grade pay of Rs 2400 with initial start of Rs 9880/- and pay scale of Rs 5910-20200 and grade pay of Rs 2800/- with initial start of Rs 11170/- and pay scale of Rs 10300-34800 and grade pay of Rs 3200/- with initial start of Rs 13500/- to the applicants at par with their counterpart in the State of Punjab with effect from 01.10.2012 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 14 - CHALLENGE TO IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY TRIBUNAL [SUBJECT MATTER IN LEAD CASE CWP No 372 of 2017]: 7. Learned State Counsel assails the Impugned Order dated 30.06.2016 passed by Learned State Administrative Tribunal on the grounds, firstly, the Impugned Order directing the State Authorities to grant re-revised pay scale with higher initial pay to employees in the State of Himachal Pradesh as were granted to employees in the State of Punjab is erroneous in law ; secondly, the findings recorded by Learned Tribunal that denial of same re-revised pay scale and initial pay to Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees at par with their counterparts employees in State of Punjab is patently irrational, unjust and is erroneous in law; and thirdly, the Impugned Order passed by the Learned Tribunal is contrary to the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services [Category /Post wise Revised Pay] Rules notified on 24.09.2012 and its Schedule which was notified on 27.09.2012 [Annexure R-1 in writ file] whereby, the re-revised pay scale based on [minimum of pay band and grade pay] has been granted to [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 15 - Technicians w.e.f. 01.10.2012 in State of Himachal Pradesh ; and fourthly, the Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees have not assailed the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services [Category /Post wise Revised Pay] Rules notified on 24.09.2012 and its Schedule notified on 27.09.2012 [Annexure R-1 in writ file] granting re-revised pay scale based on [minimum of pay band and grade pay only but without any initial start] to the Respondents-Original Applicants- Employees ; and lastly, in absence of any material on record, the Learned Tribunal could not record findings by inferring equation and parity that the Respondents-Original Applicants in State of Himachal Pradesh were at par with counterpart category in State of Punjab, by granting them the re-revised scale and initial pay (with higher initial start) as is being given to the Technicians in the State of Punjab was erroneous on facts as well as law. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS-EMPLOYEES HEREIN: 8. Learned Counsel for Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees supports the Impugned Order dated 30.06.2016 [Annexure P-1], with the assertion [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 16 - that once the category of Technicians in the State of Himachal Pradesh performed same work, job and functions with their counterparts in the State of Punjab therefore, on principle of equal pay for equal work and to ensure parity-similar treatment and to avoid discrimination, Learned Tribunal had validly granted these benefits to the employees. In this backdrop, the Impugned Order was supported by Learned Counsel for Respondents-Original Applicants -Employees, herein. 9. Heard Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General for petitioner-State of Himachal Pradesh and Mr. A.K. Gupta, Ms. Babita Chauhan & Mr. Abhyendra Gupta Advocates, for Respondents -Original Applicants and have also gone through the records. 10. Based on pleadings of parties and in fact- situation of instant case, the following questions arise for determination: (i). Whether the Impugned Order passed by Learned State Administrative Tribunal on 30.06.2016 [Annexure P-1], directing to grant the pay scales prescribed by the State of Punjab ipso-facto to employees in State of Himachal Pradesh is justified [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 17 - and legally tenable ? (ii). Whether the Impugned Order passed by Tribunal inferring equation-parity between the employees in the State of Himachal Pradesh vis-à-vis the employees in State of Punjab in absence of any material on record to establish parity-equation was justified and legally tenable ? ANALYSIS OF CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER- STATE AUTHORITIES: 11. First contention of Learned State Counsel is that Impugned Order dated 30.06.2016 [Annexure P-1] granting revised scale of pay i.e. pay band and grade pay with higher initial pay which were granted to the Junior Technician, Technician Grade-II and Technician Grade-I in the State of Punjab to the Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees w.e.f. 1.10.2012 who are employees in State of Himachal Pradesh is erroneous in law. Above contention of Learned State Counsel carries weight, for the reason, that as per the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, each State has its own individualist way of governance and the State of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow the Rules and Regulations which are prescribed by the State of Punjab for its employees; [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 18 - and secondly, there is neither any constitutional nor any other provision of law which mandates the State of Himachal Pradesh to automatically follow the pay scales as is being granted to employees by State of Punjab ; and thirdly, even the State of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow every change which is brought in the Rules and Regulations by State of Punjab or by another State ipso facto for the employees of Himachal Pradesh. In absence of any law commanding the State of Himachal Pradesh to follow the pay scales granted to employees in State of Punjab, the directions passed by the Learned Tribunal in the Impugned Order dated 30.06.2016 [Annexure P-1] to grant revised pay scale i.e. pay band and grade pay and initial pay to the Junior Technicians [Rs.5910-20200 and grade pay of Rs 2400/-with initial start of Rs.9880/-]; and to grant revised pay scale of Rs 5910-20200 and grade pay of Rs 2800/- with initial start of Rs 11170/- to Technician Grade-II ; and grant the pay scale of Rs 10300-34800 and grade pay of Rs 3200/- with initial start of Rs 13500/- to Technician Grade-I [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 19 - in State of Himachal Pradesh at par with the revised pay scales as is given to the Technicians in the State of Punjab as per the communication dated 23.12.2011, is without any binding mandate and without authority of law, is certainly erroneous, as discussed in succeeding paras. RECAP OF PUNJAB COMMUNICATION AND THE RULES NOTIFIED BY STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH: 11(i). Communication dated 23.12.2011 issued by State of Punjab for category of Technicians {Junior Technicians, Technicians Gr-II and Technicians Gr-I} reads as under: No.5/10/095FPI/1556 GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (FINANCE, PERSONNEL-I BRANCH) Dated: Chandigarh, the 23rd December, 2011. To All Heads of Department, Commissioner of Divisions, Registrar, High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Deputy Commissioners in the State. Subject: Revision of Pay Scales of Certain categories of employees Sir, I am directed to invite a reference to Punjab Government Notification No. 5/10/09-5FPI/207, dated 27.05.2009 and to say that Governor of Punjab is pleased to decide that the scales of pay of the following categories of posts shall stand revised further as under with effect from due 1st December 2011. [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 20 - 2. The pay in the abovementioned revised scale of pay effective from the 1st December, 2011 shall be fixed prospectively and there shall no element whatsoever of retrospectively in the record and there will be no question of payment. 3. The employee working on the abovementioned post shall not be entitled to any Special Grade Pay in terms of Government circular letter No. 5/109-5FPI/807, dated 14th November, 2011. 4. The necessary amendment in the rule will be made in due course. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Jasbir Kaur) Under Secretary Finance 11(ii). So far as the State of Himachal Pradesh is concerned, the State Government notified the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services [Category/Post wise Revised Pay] Rules, 2012 [referred as Rerevised Rules of 2012] on 24.09.2012, granting re-revised pay scales to its employees from 01.10.2012, as under: GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (PAY REVISION SECTION) Name of the Post Pre-revised scale Revised Scales of Pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 Revised Scales of Pay w.e.f. 01.12.2011 Pay Band Grad e Pay Initial Pay Pay Band Grad e Pay Initial Pay 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Junior Technician 3120-5160 5910-20200 1900 7810 5910-20200 2400 9880 Technician Grade -II 4220-6200 5910-20200 2400 9880 5910-20200 2800 11170 Technician Grade -I 4450-7220 5910-20200 3000 11470 10300- 34800 3200 13500 [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 21 - N O T I F I C A T I O N No. Fin(PR)-B(7)-64/2010-loose Dated: Shimla-2, the 24th September, 2012. In exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, is pleased to make the following rules, namely:- 1. Short title and commencement: (i) These rules may be called the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Category/Post- wise Revised Pay) Rules, 2012. (ii) They shall come into force with effect from the date as mentioned in Column 6 of the “Schedule” appended to these rules. 2 Application: Save as otherwise expressly provided by or under these rules; they shall apply to only such categories of Himachal Pradesh Government employees as mentioned in the aforesaid Schedule; Provided that the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 notified vide No. Fin- (PR) B(7)-1/2009 dated: 26th August, 2009 and subsequent amendment(s) thereto shall not apply to the category / post of employees as mentioned in the ‘Schedule’ with effect from the date mentioned in Column No. 6 of the said Schedule. 3. Definitions:- In these rules, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context;- (a) “Government” means the Government of Himachal Pradesh. (b) “Existing government employee” means a government servant who is in the [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 22 - government service on or before the date of commencement of these rules. (c) “Existing Pay in the Pay Band” means the pay being drawn in the running pay band by Government employees as per column-6 of Schedule appended to Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009. (d) “Existing Grade Pay” means fixed amount corresponding to the revised pay scales as specified in column 7 of the ‘Schedule’ of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009. (e) “Pay Structure” in respect of any category /post mentioned in column-2 of the Schedule is the pay band and grade pay, as specified in column No.3 & 4 read with column 5 of the ‘Schedule’ of these rules. (f) “Pay in the pay band” means the pay drawn on the date of application in the revised pay band as specified in column 3 of the ‘Schedule’. (g) “Grade pay” means the fixed amount as mentioned in the column. No 4 read with corresponding pay band in column 3 of the ‘Schedule’ against each category of the post. (h) “Schedule” means the schedule appended to these rules. 4. Drawal of pay in the different Pay Structure: Save as otherwise provided in these rules, a government employee shall draw pay in the respective pay structure applicable to the post to which he is an appointee as on the date of commencement of these rules or thereafter. 5. Fixation of Pay: The pay of a government servant unless in any case, the government by special order otherwise direct, be fixed in the following manner, namely:- [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 23 - (i) In case of existing government servants the existing pay being drawn in the relevant pay band will be protected and higher grade pay as applicable to the category /post as mentioned in the “Schedule” will be granted: Provided that if there is change in the pay band of an employee and in case the existing pay of such employee comes to less than the minimum of the revised pay band, then the employee shall draw the minimum of the pay band and grade pay of the post as mentioned in the “Schedule” against the relevant category /post. (ii) In case of Government servant appointed on or after the date of commencement of these rules, the pay will be fixed at minimum of the pay band plus grade pay as mentioned in the “Schedule” against the respective category /post. (iii) In the case of existing government employees who are governed under these rules and have been allowed special increments after putting in specific period of regular service under any rules/ executive instructions issued by the Government shall not be entitled to any special increments in future. However, the pay of existing Government servants of those specific categories who have earned such special increments shall not undergo any change and will be protected. Note:- A Government employee who is on leave [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 24 - on the date of commencement of these rules and is entitled to leave salary, shall become entitled to pay in the ‘Pay Structure’ from the date of such commencement. 9. Power to amend the Schedule: The Government, may by notification, add to or delete from the Schedule any entry or otherwise amend the Schedule, and thereupon the Schedule shall be deemed to have been amended accordingly. 10. Power to relax: Where the Government is satisfied that the operation of these rules causes undue hardship to any individual existing Government employee, it may, by an order in writing, relax or dispense with any of the provisions of these rules to such extent and subject to such conditions, as it may consider necessary. 11. Interpretation: If any question arises relating to the interpretation of any of the provisions of these rules, the Government shall decide the same. BY ORDER Sd/- Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh 11(iii). In order to give effect to the HPCS (Revised Pay) Rules dated 24.09.2012, the State Authorities have notified the Schedule to these Rules on 27.09.2012 prescribing the Re-Revised Pay [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 25 - Structure for the Technicians [Junior Technicians, Technician Gr-II and Technician Gr-I], on completion of two years of regular service w.e.f. 01.10.2012 and thereafter in the following terms: GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH FINANCE [PAY REVISION] DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION: No. Fin(PR)-B(7)-64/2010 Dated: Shimla-2, the 27th Sep., 2012. In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 9 of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services [Category/Post wise Revised Pay] Rules, 2012, read with Rule 3 of rules ibid, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to add the following categories/ post in the Schedule to the rules ibid, as under:- BY ORDER Sd/- PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [FINANCE] TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH. IMPUGNED ORDER CONTRARY TO THE HPCS RE-REVISED RULES 2012 CANNOT SUSTAIN: 11(iv). In the above backdrop, the Impugned Order 2. COMMON CATEGORIES/POSTS Sr. No. Name of the category/post . Pay Band Grade Pay Remarks, if any. Date from which applicable 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Junior Technician (i) 5910-20200 (ii) 5910- 20200 1900 2400 7810 Initial start. This PB & GP will be given after 2 years of regular service. Already existing. 01.10.2012 2. Technician Grade-II 5910-20200 2800 ………. 01.10.2012 3. Technician Grade-I 10300-34800 3200 ………. 01.10.2012 26. Senior Auditor (Non SAS) 10300-34800 4800 ………. 01.10.2012 [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 26 - dated 30.06.2016 {Annexure P-1}, passed by Learned Tribunal directing to treat the Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees at par with the corresponding category of employees in the State of Punjab and directing to grant the benefit of Punjab Re-Revised Scales {i.e. pay band, grade pay and higher initial pay} to the Respondents-Original Applicants cannot sustain, for the reason, firstly, the aforesaid direction is not borne out from the Rules of 2012; and secondly, the impugned direction is contrary to the express mandate contained in Rule 5(ii) of 2012 Rules, whereby, the pay of the persons appointed after the coming into force of these Rules w.e.f. 24/27.09.2012 {alike Technicians herein} was to be regulated in the revised pay structure based on [minimum of pay band and grade pay only]; and thirdly, the impugned direction is without authority of law when, the HPCS Revised Pay Rules of 2012 nowhere stipulates that the pay in revised pay structure is to be fixed by taking into account minimum of pay band and grade pay with higher initial pay as was granted to the Technicians [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 27 - in the State of Punjab; and fourthly, the Impugned order passed by the Learned Tribunal directing the Petitioner-State of Himachal Pradesh to give the pay scales which were notified by the State of Punjab is unsustainable, when, as per Rule 4 of the HPCS Re-revised Pay Rules, the right of an employee to draw pay accrues in respective pay structure attached to the post to which he is appointed ;and fifthly, the Impugned directions passed by the Learned Tribunal amount to directing the State to draw pay in pay structure which was not prescribed for the post to which they were appointed being contrary to Rule 4 of the HPCS Re-revised Pay Rules of 2012 is erroneous in law ; and sixthly, once a combined reading of Rule 3© read with Rule 4 and Rule 5(ii) of the HPCS State Rules of 2012, “only recognizes regular service rendered in a running pay band for grant of rerevised pay from 01.10.2012 and thereafter” and the “contractual service, which was a service rendered on fixed emoluments and was not a service rendered in relevant running pay band” cannot be [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 28 - permitted to operate dehors the State Rules; and seventhly, Impugned Order passed by Learned Tribunal directing the Petitioner-State of Himachal Pradesh to grant the pay structure with higher initial start as was granted by the State of Punjab certainly amounts to extending benefit of contractual service for granting rerevised pay contrary to the intent, spirit and express mandate of the State Rules of 2012 ; and eighthly, the Impugned Order passed by Learned Tribunal on 30.06.2016 [Annexure P-1], mandating the Petitioner-State Authorities to grant re-revised pay scales which existed in State of Punjab [based on minimum of pay band and grade pay with initial pay] as per the notification dated 23.12.2011 issued by State of Punjab by making this notification applicable in case of Respondents- Original Applicants w.e.f. 1.10.2012 who are the employees in the State of Himachal Pradesh in derogation of the State Rules i.e. Himachal Pradesh Civil Services [Category / Post wise Revised Pay] Rules dated 24.09.2012, including Rule 5 (ii) which expressly stipulates that the pay of the persons [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 29 - appointed after coming into force of these Rules will be fixed on “minimum of pay band and grade pay but without any initial pay” and the Impugned Order of Learned Tribunal amounts to rewriting and reframing the State Rules, which is impermissible by directing the Petitioners-State of Himachal Pradesh to grant the pay which was existing/granted in the State of Punjab even to Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees herein ; who were governed by distinctive and separate State Rules, who could not be ipso-facto be directed to be ipso-facto governed by the Punjab Rules-Norms. In these circumstances, Impugned Order passed by the Learned Tribunal on 30.06.2016 {Annexure P-1}, cannot operate dehors the HPCS Revised Pay Rules 2012, which occupied the field and therefore, the Impugned Order is interdicted and is quashed and set-aside. PETITIONER-STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH NOT BOUND TO FOLLOW PUNJAB PAY SCALE: 11(v). While adjudicating a similar issue as to whether the State of Himachal Pradesh is bound [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 30 - to grant pay scales which have been granted to employees by the State of Punjab was negated with the findings that there is no constitutional or legal provision nor any law commands that the State of Himachal Pradesh shall follow the pay scales which exist in the State of Punjab. The Rules and Regulations which are applicable to the employees of the State of Punjab or other State are neither ipso facto binding nor can a mandate be issued by directing the State of Himachal Pradesh to follow the Punjab Pay Rules and Regulations automatically unless, the Punjab Pay Rules are expressly adopted by the State of Himachal Pradesh, which has not been done in the instant case. Deprecating such a claim, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in State of Himachal Pradesh versus P.D. Attri and others (1999) 3 SCC 217, as under:- 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 [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 31 - 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 if the State 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" had 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. 6. The State of Punjab was reorganised into States of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 32 - 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 25.9.1985 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 Punjab Civil Secretariat, 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, 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 [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 33 - 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 different qualifications for appointment to the posts of Senior Translators and Junior Translators that may exist between 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-scales 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. 11(vi). While adjudicating a similar proposition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Mahatma Gandhi Mission and another versus Bhartiya Kamgar Sena and others. (2017) 4 SCC 449. has outlined that there is no authority to compel the States to adopt the pay structures which [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 34 - are applicable in Government of India, in the following terms: 60. The Sixth Pay Commission appointed by the Government of India is only a body entrusted with the job of making an assessment of the need to revise the pay structure of the employees of the Government of India and to suggest appropriate measures for revision of the pay structure. The recommendations of the pay commission are not binding on the Government of India, much less any other body. They are only meant for administrative guidance of the Government of India. The Government of India may accept or reject the recommendations either fully or partly, though it has never happened that the recommendations of the pay commission are completely rejected by the Government so far. 61. Once the Government of India accepted the recommendations of the pay commission and issued orders signifying its acceptance, it became the decision of the Government of India. That decision of the Government of India created a right in favour of its employees to receive pay in terms of the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission and the Government of India is obliged to pay. 62. The fact that the Government of India accepted the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission (for that matter any pay [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 35 - commission) does not either oblige the States to follow the pattern of the revised pay structure adopted by the Government of India or create any right in favour of the employees of the State or other bodies falling within the legislative authority of the State. The Government of India has no authority either under the Constitution or under any law to compel the States or their instrumentalities to adopt the pay structure applicable to the employees of the Government of India. 11(vii). While examining the issue as to whether communications issued by the Central Government governing conditions of service, including pay etc were binding on the State of Uttarakhand with respect to State Universities, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttarakhand versus Sudhir Budakoti and others, (2022) 13 SCC 256, has mandated that the State of Uttarakhand was not bound by any direction issued by the Central Government, unless such a direction was decided to be accepted and adopted by the State concerned, in following terms: 20. We have recorded the facts in the preceding paragraphs. Law has become quite settled [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 36 - that the Appellant is not bound by any direction issued by the Central Government which would at worst be mandatory to the Central Universities and the Central Government Colleges receiving funds. Thus, any such decision would obviously be directory to State Government Colleges and Universities, being in the nature of a mere recommendation. 21. The aforesaid position has been clarified by the decision of this Court in Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj, (2015) 6 SCC 363: “62.2. The UGC Regulations being passed by both the Houses of Parliament, though a subordinate legislation has binding effect on the universities to which it applies. 62.3. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are mandatory to teachers and other academic staff in all the Central universities and colleges thereunder and the institutions deemed to be universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by UGC. 62.4. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are directory for the universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions under the purview of the State legislation as the matter has been left to the State Government to adopt and implement the Scheme. Thus, the UGC Regulations, 2010 are partly mandatory and is partly directory.” 22. The High Court of Uttarakhand in our opinion has completely misconstrued the facts. The Appellant nowhere has made a decision to accept and adopt the [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 37 - circular of the Central Government pertaining to the Registrars working in the Universities coming under its purview. In the absence of any legal right with the corresponding duty, such a relief can never be asked for, particularly when there are clear and specific rules provided for the pay scale of Registrars by the Appellant itself. The decision of the Appellant qua the Lecturers who form a distinct group as against the Respondent No. 1 who holds a higher position in the administration has been lost sight of. Merely because Respondent No. 1 was made to fill the gap by temporarily taking up the job of a Lecturer, he would never become one and so also a Lecturer, who might undertake the job of a Registrar. This is nothing but an administrative convenience borne out of a contingency. When the classification is distinct and clear having adequate rationale with due relation to the objective, there is no reason to hold otherwise by treating a Registrar at par with the Lecturers. One is meant for administration and the other teaching. The High Court has also not considered the financial implications as any decision would not rest with Respondent No. 1 alone, but the entirety of the administrative staff. MANDATE OF THIS COURT THAT STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH IS NOT BOUND TO FOLLOW PUNJAB PAY SCALES MANDATORILY: 11(viii). While examining the claim of a Sub-Fire [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 38 - Officer in the State of Himachal Pradesh, who was claiming parity in pay scale with his counterpart in the State of Punjab, the claim was negated by this Court in CWP No. 8425 of 2010 in Balvinder Singh Mahal versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others dated 16.10.2014, after relying on the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.D. Attri (supra), in the following terms: 7. In view of the exposition of law in P.D. Attri’s case (supra), it has to be seen as to whether the petitioner has been able to establish violation of any constitutional or any other legal provision when he has laid claim based upon parity with the posts with similarly situate persons in the State of Punjab and claiming pay scales granted in the said State. 12. Tested on the touchstone of the aforenoted broad guidelines and taking into account the exposition of law in Tilak Raj’s case (supra), it can conveniently be concluded that the petitioner has failed to establish on record his entitlement to the pay scale as being paid to his counterparts in Punjab and the petitioner is not otherwise entitled to claim the same merely on the basis of Punjab pattern [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 39 - in view of judgment in P.D. Attri’s case (supra). 11(ix). While dealing with the claim of a Senior Lecturer in Department of Ayurveda who was claiming benefit of higher grade pay by seeking parity with counter parts in Punjab, the claim was negated by another Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2710 of 2018, State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Dr. Suman Sharma dated 22.09.2020, in the following terms: 4(i). ……Therefore, Grade Pay of Rs 6600/- cannot be released to the respondent merely on the ground that Punjab Government grants this grade pay to its Senior Lecturer/Assistant Professor/Reader. Punjab pattern of pay scales will not be ipso facto binding upon the petitioner-State. 11(x). While dealing with the claim of Senior Laboratory Technicians in State of Himachal Pradesh, who were claiming parity in pay scale with the Laboratory Technicians in the health department in the State of Punjab, this Court has held in CWPOA No. 673 of 2019, R.P. Sood and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, that the State of Himachal is not bound to follow [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 40 - pay scales granted by the Rules or Regulations or Notifications issued in the State of Punjab and even if in the past, the State of Himachal had followed the Punjab Pay Scales, then also, the State of Himachal is not bound to follow every change automatically, unless and until the State of Himachal issues its own orders adopting the same and every State has its own legal entity, having own individualistic way of governance and no law commands and mandates the State of Himachal to automatically follow the pay scales of another State, including State of Punjab in the following terms: 17. Under Entry No. 41 of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India, State Government has exclusive jurisdiction on State Public Services. The pay scales and service conditions prescribed under Article 309 are alone applicable in the State. Thus, pay scales of Punjab cannot be applied until the State Government issues its own orders. 18. Main argument/submission raised on behalf of the petitioners that the State of Himachal Pradesh is bound to follow pay pattern fixed by Punjab, already stands negated/rejected by Hon'ble Apex [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 41 - Court in the celebrated case titled State of Himachal Pradesh v. P.D. Attri, (1999) 3 SCC 317, wherein it has been categorically held that the State is not bound to follow the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of other State and even if it has been following the same, it is not bound to follow every change made by the other State. 20. 20. In view of the exposition of law in P.D. Attri supra, it is to be seen as to whether the petitioners have been able to establish violation of constitutional or other legal provisions when they lay their claim based upon parity qua a post or similarly situate post in Punjab or pay scale granted in the other State. 27. Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of cases had an occasion to deal with the question, which has fallen for determination in the cases at hand. Vide order dated 22.9.2020, Division Bench of this Court in case titled State of Himachal Pradesh & others v. Dr. Suman Sharma, CWP No. 2710 of 2018 and other connected matters, decided on 22.9.2020, while placing reliance upon various judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court, has held that the State of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow the Rules and Regulations as applicable to the employees of Punjab or other States, even if it has adopted some rules and regulations, it is not bound to follow every change brought in such rules and regulations [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 42 - in other State. 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. 35. Since the State of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow each and every [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 43 - change brought in the rules and regulations in other States, its action inasmuch as granting grade pay of Rs 4800/- is a measure personnel to them with effect from 1.5.2013, cannot be said to be bad in law. 39. In view of the various judgments taken note herein above, the State of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow every change brought about in the rules and regulations of the State of Punjab, as such, petitioners cannot seek a direction from this Court to extend the benefit of revision of pay scales, which otherwise has been granted by the respondents with effect from 1.5.2013, from back date i.e. 1.1.1978. 11(xi). Negating the plea of Veterinary and Animal Sciences Teachers’ Association, who were serving as Assistant Professor in Agricultural University and were claiming benefit of two advance increments as granted to faculty in Agricultural University in State of Punjab, the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3344 of 2020, State of Himachal Pradesh through Principal Secretary [Agriculture] versus The Veterinary & Animal Sciences Teachers’ Association and another, decided on 02.04.2024, held as under: 4(iv). …Merely because Agricultural Universities [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 44 - in the State of Punjab have released two advance increments to its faculty possessing M.V. Sc. degree would not mean that respondent State is obligated to do the same. What happens in the State of Punjab in respect of release of pay-scales/incentives is not to be automatically implemented by the State of Himachal Pradesh. The respondents State has to examine the matter of release of pay-scale/incentives in view of its own staffing pattern, Recruitment & Promotion Rules, method of recruitment, educational qualifications, geographical / traditional / territorial conditions and financial resources etc. The Government of Himachal Pradesh is not legally bound to follow the Punjab pay-scale pattern. In this petition, we are not even concerned with release of revised pay-scale, but the admissibility of two non-compounded advance increments as incentive to the members of respondent No. 1 association in lieu of their M.V. Sc. Degree. As noticed earlier, neither there is any material on record to suggest that the State or respondent No. 2 are bound to release the increments that are released by the ICAR nor any submission on this point was advanced by learned Senior Counsel for respondent No 1. Respondent No 1’s stand alone ground of State of Himachal Pradesh/respondent No 2 University being mandatorily bound to follow the State of Punjab pattern of pay-scales/ [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 45 - incentives, is untenable. 11(xii). Plea of Workshop Instructors, who were promoted as Foreman Instructors in pay scale of Rs 10300-34800 with GP 4600 w.e.f 01.08.2016 in Technical Education Department in State of Himachal Pradesh for giving pay scale of Rs 15600-39100 with GP 5400 as given to counterparts in State of Punjab, was turned down by this Court, in CWPOA No 6543 of 2019, Attar Singh and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 20.05.2022 in the following terms:- 5. Petitioners are claiming pay scale of 15600- 39100+ 5400 Grade Pay for themselves as Foreman Instructors on the basis of same scale being drawn by their counter parts in State of Punjab. It is no more res integra that the Government of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow the pay scales granted by the State of Punjab to its employees. In State of Himachal vs. P.D. Attri and others, (1999)3 SCC 217, the Hon'ble Apex Court ….” 13. Following the aforesaid mandate, the Division Bench of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and Others vs. Dr. Suman Sharma, 2020 (4) Shim. LC 2031 ….” [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 46 - 15. Thus, the qualification for the post of Foreman Instructor in Punjab, in the case of direct recruitment is possession of First Class Bachelor Degree or Master degree and by way of promotion, experience of 10 years as regular Workshop Instructor is required. Petitioners neither hold the qualification as required for the post of Foreman Instructor through direct recruitment in State of Punjab nor have the requisite experience of 10 years before their promotion. Further, even the essential qualification prescribed for the post of Workshop Instructors in the State of Himachal Pradesh and State of Punjab are not identical. Based on the principles outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of P. D. Attri, Secretary, Mahatma Gandhi Mission and Sudhir Budakoti (supra) and the judgements passed by this Court, in the cases of Balvinder Singh Mahal, Dr. Suman Sharma, R.P. Sood, Veterinary & Animal Sciences Teachers Assn and Attar Singh (supra), in principle approves the view taken by Learned Single Judges in aforesaid cases and reiterates the judgments passed by Division Bench of this Court and holds that the Impugned Order dated 30.06.2016 [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 47 - [Annexure P-1] passed by the Learned State Administrative Tribunal directing the Petitioner-State Authorities to grant pay scale of Rs. 5910-20200 and grade pay of Rs 2400/-with initial start of Rs 9880/-to Junior Technicians; and pay scale of Rs 5910-20200 and grade pay of Rs 2800/- with initial start of Rs 11170/-to Technician Gr-II ; and pay scale of Rs 10300-34800 and grade pay of Rs 3200/-with initial start of Rs 13,500/-to the Technician Gr-I [i.e. Respondents-Original Applicants- Employees herein], at par with counterparts in the State of Punjab w.e.f. 01.10.2012; is erroneous in law. Firstly, as per Entry No 41 in State list under Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, the State Government has the exclusive jurisdiction over the State Public Services; and secondly, every State, including the State of Himachal Pradesh is a separate legal entity, having its own independent and individualistic way of governance and the mode and manner of prescribing the conditions of service of state public services, including the pay scales and revised pay scales for its employees ; and thirdly, [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 48 - there is neither any provision constitutional nor any law commanding State of Himachal Pradesh to follow pay scales which exist or have been prescribed for employees by the State of Punjab ; and fourthly, the Rules, Regulations, Norms notified by the State of Punjab for its employees are not ipso-facto binding on employees of the State of Himachal Pradesh nor can any such rules, regulations, notifications issued by another State or the State of Punjab for its employees can be mandated to be followed and applied automatically to the employees of the State of Himachal Pradesh ; and fifthly, even no Court or Tribunal can mandate one State i.e. the State of Himachal Pradesh to follow the pay scales prescribed by another State or the State of Punjab automatically, except in a case, where, one State in its wisdom, by way of a policy decision “expressly adopts” the rules, regulations, notifications regarding conditions of service, including admissibility of pay or revised pay benefits of another State, which has not been done in the instant case; and sixthly, if in the past, the State of Himachal Pradesh [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 49 - has followed pay scale existing in the State of Punjab based on conscious and express adoption and decision {regarding a rules, regulation, instruction or an event or situation specific} then also, no employee has an any fundamental or legal right to seek its enforcement for all times to come, in perpetuity. Even in such a scenario, in case of an express adoption, in the past, the intent of the order, which is sought to be or has been expressly adopted has to be tested/examined, in facts of each case. Since the decision to revise or rerevise the pay of its employees lies within the exclusive domain of an employer and such policy decision had culminated in the HPCS Revised Pay Rule of 2012, which hold the field. The Impugned Order which grants automatic or ipso-facto parity to the Technicians working in Himachal Pradesh i.e. the Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees with the employees in State of Punjab dehors the State Rules and that too without there being any constitutional- legal mandate commanding the State of Himachal Pradesh to follow the Punjab Pay Rules-Norms and [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 50 - without there being any express adoption of the Punjab Pay Norms, including communication dated 23.12.2011 notified by the State of Punjab for Technicians {i.e. Junior Technician, Technician Grade -II and Technician Grade-I}; and therefore, in these circumstances, the Impugned Order dated 30.06.2016 {Annexure P-1} mandating State of Himachal Pradesh -petitioners to grant the pay scales which have been granted by the State of Punjab to its employees in the State of Himachal Pradesh, cannot pass the test of judicial scrutiny. Accordingly, the contention of Learned State Counsel has force and the Impugned Order is quashed and set-aside. 12. Second contention of Learned State Counsel is that the Impugned Order dated 30.06.2016 [Annexure P-1} directing the petitioners-State Authorities to treat Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees at par with counterparts in the State of Punjab and to extend the Punjab pay scales w.e.f. 1.10.2012 [i.e. minimum of pay band, grade pay and initial pay] is erroneous. Above contention of Learned State Counsel [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 51 - carries weight, for the reason, that the directions passed by the Learned Tribunal in the Impugned Order can only sustain, when, both set of employees are appointed by the same authority; are appointed in same manner; and where liability, criteria, duties, mode of recruitment, classification, nature of work, value of work, responsibilities and other conditions of service in terms of service rules are identical in all respects. Once nothing has been placed on record to establish the similarity in terms of above parameters between Technicians [Junior Technician / Technician Grade-II/ Technician Grade-I] in IPH-Jal Shakti Vibhag in Himachal Pradesh vis-à-vis their counterparts in State of Punjab therefore, the findings recorded by Learned Tribunal in Impugned Order by inferring parity and by directing the Petitioner(s)-State of Himachal Pradesh to treat the Respondents-Original Applicants at par with their counterparts in State of Punjab cannot sustain and therefore, the Impugned Order is interdicted and is accordingly set-aside. EQUATION BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT CADRES OR EMPLOYEES GOVERNED BY DIFFERENT SET OF RULES OR DIFFERENT ENTITIES IS IMPERMISSIBLE: [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 52 - 12(i). While outlining the broad parameters for invoking “equal pay for equal work”, the Honble Supreme Court has held in State of Punjab versus Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148, that “onus of proof” of parity between the subject post and reference post is of the person, who claims it by establishing that “unequal pay scales is based on no classification or irrational classification” and further mandated that in case, the subject post and reference post are in different establishments, having different management having different control under different entities and if both these post are in different geographical locations and merely because at any earlier point of time, the subject post and reference post were placed in same pay scale cannot be a ground to accept the plea of equal pay for equal work or parity on the basis of mere nomenclature, which cannot be determinative of parity. Claim for parity or equal pay for equal work” is neither attracted nor can it be accorded, in case of “dissimilar powers, duties, responsibilities and even absence of proof of equal sensitivity, qualitatively responsibility, reliability and [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 53 - confidentiality, volume of work, mode of recruitment and pay scales can be different if the hierarchy and promotional avenues of subject post and reference post is different. 12(ii). Claim of incumbents for same pay scales alleging discrimination or arbitrariness was turned down in an eventuality where two set of persons belonged to different cadres and were governed by two set of rules by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hirandra Kumar versus High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and another (2020) 17 SCC 401, in the following terms: 29. For the same reason, no case of discrimination or arbitrariness can be made out on the basis of a facial comparison of the Higher Judicial Service Rules, with the Rules governing Nyayik Sewa. Both sets of rules cater to different cadres. A case of discrimination cannot be made out on the basis of a comparison of two sets of rules which govern different cadres. 12(iii). Claim for same pay scales, where the two groups are not equal and both do not belong to a homogenous group or class of persons and were not similarly placed, was turned down by the Hon’ble [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 54 - Supreme Court in State of Uttarakhand versus Sudhir Budakoti and others, (2022) 13 SCC 256, in the following terms: 17. The question as to whether a classification is reasonable or not is to be answered on the touchstone of a reasonable, common man’s approach, keeping in mind the avowed object behind it. If the right to equality is to be termed as a genus, a right to non-discrimination becomes a specie. When two identified groups are not equal, certainly they cannot be treated as a homogeneous group. A reasonable classification thus certainly would not injure the equality enshrined under Article 14 when there exists an intelligible differentia between two groups having a rational relation to the object. Therefore, an interference would only be called for on the court being convinced that the classification causes inequality among similarly placed persons. The role of the court being restrictive, generally, the task is best left to the concerned authorities. When a classification is made on the recommendation made by a body of experts constituted for the purpose, courts will have to be more wary of entering into the said arena as its interference would amount to substituting its views, a process which is best avoided. 18. As long as the classification does not [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 55 - smack of inherent arbitrariness and conforms to justice and fair play, there may not be any reason to interfere with it. It is the wisdom of the other wings which is required to be respected except when a classification is bordering on arbitrariness, artificial difference and itself being discriminatory. A decision made sans the aforesaid situation cannot be tested with either a suspicious or a microscopic eye. Good-faith and intention are to be presumed unless the contrary exists. One has to keep in mind that the role of the court is on the illegality involved as against the governance. 12(iv). Plea of parity and equation under Article 14 and 16 between persons belongs to different cadres in different State [Himachal Pradesh vis-à-vis Punjab] was negated and repelled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary and others versus Seema Sharma, (2023) 14 SCC 376, in the following terms: 18. In Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (supra), this Court further held that it was well-settled that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work could only be invoked when the employees were similarly circumstanced in every way. Mere similarity of designation or similarity or quantum of work was not [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 56 - determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales. The Court had to consider all the relevant factors such as the mode of recruitment, qualifications for the post, the nature of work, the value of work, responsibilities involved and various other factors. 23. The fixation of scales of pay is a matter of policy, with which the Courts can only interfere in exceptional cases where there is discrimination between two sets of employees appointed by the same authority, in the same manner, where the eligibility criteria is the same and the duties are identical in every aspect. Based on the principle of law as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh Hirandra Kumar, Sudhir Budakoti and Seema Sharma [supra] and reference to the factual matrix of the instant case, once the Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees herein are employees who were initially appointed as Pump Operators on contract basis and were regularized as such in the year 2013 in the State of Himachal Pradesh were to be governed by State Rules i.e. Himachal Pradesh Civil Services [Category/Post wise Revised Pay] Rules, 2012 notified on 24.09.2012 and its Schedule dated [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 57 - 27.09.2012 for regulating the conditions of service, including pay scale /revised pay scales and these employees constituted distinctive category in itself. The Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees herein have neither any right nor any locus to claim parity or similar treatment with the counterparts in the State of Punjab who belonged to a different cadre and are governed by altogether distinctive rules framed by the State of Punjab. Accordingly, once the Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees are dissimilar to the employees in the State of Punjab and therefore, the Impugned Order dated 30.06.2016 [Annexure P-1] passed by the State Administrative Tribunal by directing the petitioner-State to extend the pay scales, pay band and grade pay and initial pay as is being granted to counterparts in State of Punjab {as in communication dated 23.12.2011} cannot sustain. Further, once Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees are governed by the Revised Pay Rules notified by the State of Himachal Pradesh in 2012 and they belong to different State and belong to distinctive cadre, who are governed by [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 58 - distinct Rules and who do not belong to one homogenous group of employees and that is no material on record [before Tribunal and even before this Court] to establish parity or equation, therefore, in the absence of any material, Learned Tribunal could not infer equation or parity in favor of the Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees on mere ipse-dixit and thus the Impugned Order is interdicted and is accordingly set-aside. 13. Third contention of Learned State Counsel is that the Impugned Order by Tribunal is contrary to the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services [Category /Post wise Revised Pay] Rules, 2012, notified on 24.09.2012 and its Schedule notified on 27.09.2012 whereby the re-revised pay structure of “minimum of pay band and grade pay” was to be granted has been violated. Above contention has force, for the reason, that the State of Himachal Pradesh is a legal entity, competent to enact or issue its own norms governing conditions of service including pay scales for its employees and by virtue of the proviso to Article [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 59 - 309 of the Constitution of India. Pertinently, the State of Himachal Pradesh by way of policy decision decided to give the revised pay to its employees, including, the cadre of Technicians by notifying the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules on 20.01.1998 by giving effect to the revision from First day of January 1996. Likewise, the State of Himachal Pradesh notified the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules on 26.08.2009 which came into force with effect from First day of January, 2006. These Revised Pay Rules governed the grant of pay scales to State Government employees in Himachal Pradesh who are working on regular basis and contractual employees were excluded from the purview of HPCS Revised Pay Rules of 1998 and Rules of 2009. Pertinently, Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees in the Lead Case was initially appointed as Junior Technician on contract basis and were regularized in terms of the regularization policy as Junior Technician on 08.05.2013 with immediate effect. At the time of regular appointment in 2013, the State of Himachal Pradesh had notified [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 60 - the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services [Category/Post wise Revised Pay] Rules under proviso to Article 309 on 24.09.2012 and also notified its Schedule on 27.09.2019 giving re-revised pay scales based on {minimum of pay in pay band plus grade pay} to the Junior Technician, Technician Grade-II and Technician Grade-I w.e.f. 01.10.2012 therefore, the Impugned Order dated 30.06.2016 [Annexure P-1 in Lead Case] passed by the Learned Tribunal in directing the petitioner-State to grant the benefit of Re-Revised Pay Scales [minimum of pay band plus grade pay with initial start] as was granted in the State of Punjab is certainly a direction, which is ex-facie dehors and contrary to Himachal Pradesh Revised Pay Rules dated 24.09.2012 and its Schedule dated 27.09.2012. 14. Fourth contention of the Learned State Counsel is that the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services [Category/Post wise Revised Pay] Rules notified on 24.09.2012 and its Schedule dated 27.09.2012 has not been assailed and therefore the aforesaid rules and the mode of pay fixation on revision is binding [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 61 - on the Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees. FAILURE TO CHALLENGE STATE RULES OF 2012 DISENTITLES RESPONDENT-EMPLOYEES FOR ANY RELIEF: 14(i). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission versus Manish Bakawale and others, (2021) 18 SCC 61, has held as under: 20. In the present facts and circumstances, the Rule concerned provides for a definite process, which was also depicted in the advertisement calling for applications. The Rule is not under challenge. The candidate concerned had applied without demur and also furnished a declaration with regard to correctness of details provided. He cannot thereafter turn around to seek alteration of the position to the detriment of others. 14(ii). Even the Respondents-Original Applicants- Employees herein have not laid any challenge to the Re-Revised Rules and its Schedule issued by the State Government in 2012. In the absence of any challenge to the Rules, the only legal drawable conclusion is that the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services [Category/Post wise Revised Pay] Rules, 2012 and its Schedule thereof holds the field and is valid. [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 62 - Thus, the directions issued by State Administrative Tribunal in the Impugned Order dated 30.06.2016, granting the pay scales as in the State of Punjab communication dated 23.12.2011 [at page 48/50 of paper book] amounts to ignoring and acting dehors the Himachal Pradesh State Rules and therefore, in this background the directions granting re-revised pay scales dehors the State Revised Pay Rules notified under the proviso to Article 309 is unsustainable and therefore, the Impugned Order is quashed and set-aside. PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE RULES OF 2012: 14(ii). The above contention has force for the reason that once the above Statutory Rules of 2012 have been notified under the provisio to Article 309 of the Constitution of India then, presumption of constitutionality is attached to these Rules, in terms of the mandate of the Honble Supreme Court in Dr Jaya Thakur vs Union of India, (2023) 10 SCC 276 [Para 73], and in Allahabad University vs Geetanjali Tiwari, 2024 SCC Online 3776 [Para 27}. Moreover, once the extant Statutory [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 63 - Rules of 2012 hold the field and these Rules have not been assailed in Lead Case and connected cases coupled with presumption of constitutionality attached to such Rules therefore, such Rules bind the State as well as Respondents-Original Applicants -Employees. In these circumstances, the Impugned Order 30.06.2016 (Annexure P-1) which grants the benefits of rerevised pay to the Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees by acting wholly contrary to and dehors the State Rules of 2012 cannot operate. Accordingly, the Impugned Order dated 30.06.2016 (Annexure P-1), cannot sustain. 15. Fifth contention of the State Government is that the Impugned Order dated 30.06.2016 amounts to conferring parity and equation of the Respondents -Original Applicants-Employees with the employees in the State of Punjab automatically is erroneous in law. PLEA OF PARITY AND EQUATION IS TO BE ESTABLISHED BY MATERIAL ON RECORD BY PERSONS CLAIMING PARITY OR EQUATION: Above contention of Learned State Counsel has force, for the reason, that the fixation of pay, [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 64 - extent of revision, date(s) of its implementation and even the issue regarding determination of equation or parity is to be resorted to by taking into account various parameters i.e. mode of recruitment, qualification(s), nature of work, value of work, responsibilities, duties, etc. in the backdrop of social, revenue and economic conditions besides exigencies and diverse situation within the exclusive domain of employer. Further once there is reasonable basis for a classification with adequate demarcation duly identified then, the object of Article 14 is satisfied. Determining parity and equation lies within the exclusive domain of an employer. However, in case an employee asserts a claim for parity-equality then, such employee has to establish the same by placing on record cogent, convincing and conclusive material and absence of material negates the claim and such negation, does not suffer from any infirmity. 15(i). Negating the claim for parity on principle of equal pay for equal work, when, no material was placed before the Court, regarding the nature of duties of other categories, by the Hon’ble Supreme [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 65 - Court in State of Haryana and another versus Tilak Raj and others, (2003) 6 SCC 123, in the following terms: 11. A scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he holds no posts. The respondent workers cannot be held to hold any posts to claim even any comparison with the regular and permanent staff for any or all purposes including a claim for equal pay and allowances. To claim a relief on the basis of equality, it is for the claimants to substantiate a clear cut basis of equivalence and a resultant hostile discrimination before becoming eligible to claim rights on a par with the other group vis- à-vis an alleged discrimination. No material was placed before the High Court as to the nature of the duties of either categories and it is not possible to hold that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is an abstract one. 15(ii). While negating the claim for parity and equation where the person had failed to plead, prove and establish by cogent and convincing material that all things were equal between two posts in terms of eligibility, mode of selection, nature and quality of work, duties, reliability, confidentiality [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 66 - dexterity, functional need and responsibilities, then, in the absence of any such material on record, the claim for parity and equation was negated, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited and others versus Dibyendu Bhattacharya, (2011) 11 SCC 122, in the following terms:- 30. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarized 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 [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 67 - the parties. 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. 15(iii). Likewise, in Civil Appeal No. 9124 of 2014 State of Himachal Pradesh and another [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 68 - versus Tilak Raj, decided on 01.09.2014, the claim for parity and equation was disallowed, when, the employees were working in different cadres/different departments and nothing existed on record, qua the exactness and similarity of work and other parameters, by reversing the findings recorded by High Court, in the following terms: 22. It is also clear that disputed question of facts were involved in the petitions because according to the respondents, who were petitioners before the High Court, nature of work done by them was similar to that of the work of other Laboratory Attendants or Laboratory Assistants. Without looking at the nature of work done by persons working in different cadres in different departments, one cannot jump to a conclusion that all these persons were doing similar type of work simply because in a civil suit, one particular person had succeeded after adducing evidence. There is nothing on record to show that the High Court had examined the nature of work done by the respondents and other persons who were getting higher pay scale. The High Court had also not considered the fact that qualifications required for appointment to both the posts were different. In our opinion, the High Court should not have entertained [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 69 - all these petitions where disputed questions of fact were required to be examined. Without examining relevant evidence regarding exact nature of work, working conditions and other relevant factors, it is not possible to come to a conclusion with regard to similarity in the nature of work done by persons belonging to different cadres and normally such exercise should not be carried out by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. It is settled law that the work of fixing pay scale is left to an expert body like Pay Commission or other similar body, as held by this Court in several cases, including the case of S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand (2007) 8 SCC 279. Moreover, qualifications, experience, etc are also required to be examined before fixing pay scales. Such an exercise was not carried out in this case by the High Court. 15(iv). 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 [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 70 - 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 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, [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 71 - 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)”. 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. 26. The respondents have not produced any material to show that there is any [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 72 - similarity/identity between the posts of Sub Fire Officers and the Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants and Internal Auditors in terms of the nature of duties, responsibilities, qualifications and mode of recruitment etc. to apply the principle of parity of pay scale. The learned Single Judge did not keep in view that the nature of duties and responsibilities performed by the Sub Fire Officers are different and parity cannot be claimed merely on the ground that they are categorised in one group. The judgment of the learned Single Judge and the impugned judgment of the Division Bench cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. 15(v). While dealing with the prerequisites, for claiming equation or parity or equal pay for equal work, the Honble Supreme Court has outlined in Punjab State Power Corporation Limited versus Rajesh Kumar Jindal and others, (2019) 3 SCC 547, in the following terms: 14. Ordinarily, the courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like the Pay Commission etc. The aggrieved employees claiming parity must establish that they are unjustly treated by arbitrary action or discriminated. In [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 73 - Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank v. D.B. Sharma and Others (2001) 1 SCC 353, this Court held as under: “7. The next question that arises for consideration is, as to what extent the High Court would be justified in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the findings of an expert body like the Equation Committee. In State of U.P. and Others v. J.P. Chaurasia and Others (1989) 1 SCC 121, this Court unequivocally held that in the matter of equation of posts or equation of pay, the same should be left to the Executive Government, who can get it determined by expert bodies like the Pay Commission, and such expert body would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of the posts and when such determination by a commission or committee is made, the court should normally accept it and should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration….” 15(vi). Equation or parity in pay scale including the extent of revision has been approved to be an offshoot of the State Policy, lying within the exclusive domain of an employer as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association and others versus State of Maharashtra and others [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 74 - (2023) 11 SCC 186, in the following terms: 27. That on whether, and what should be the extent of pay revision, are undoubtedly matters falling within the domain of executive policy making. At the same time, a larger public interest is involved, impelling revision of pay of public officials and employees. Sound public policy considerations appear to have weighed with the Union and state governments, and other public employers, which have carried out pay revision exercises, periodically (usually once a decade, for the past 50 years or so). The rationale for such periodic pay revisions is to ensure that the salaries and emoluments that public employees enjoy, should keep pace with the increased cost of living and the general inflationary trends, and ensure it does not adversely impact employees. Pay revisions also subserve other objectives, such as enthusing a renewed sense of commitment and loyalty towards public employment. Another important public interest consideration, is that such revisions are meant to deter public servants from the lure of gratification; of supplementing their income by accepting money or other inducements for discharging their functions. Reference to the material on record in instant petition, indicates that Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees have not placed any cogent [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 75 - and convincing material on record to establish the factum of parity and equation vis-à-vis counterpart category of employees in the State of Punjab. In absence of any material on record, to assert and to establish parity and equation, the findings recorded in Paras 9 and 10 that the duties discharged by Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees are similar to the duties discharged by their counterpart in Punjab, who were given the rerevised pay scale in terms of communication dated 23.12.2011 and the findings that denial of benefits to the Respondents- Original Applicants-Employees of State of Himachal Pradesh was held to be an anomaly are perverse for the reason, that once the Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees were claiming parity-equation then, such a claim for parity-equation was bound to pleaded and proved by placing on record cogent and convincing material revealing similarity in all respects. No material was placed on record to assert and establish parity-equation and in the absence of any material the findings recorded in Impugned Order inferring parity and equation by terming it [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 76 - to be anomaly and by terming the non-removal of anomaly to be an act of discrimination is patently perverse in view of the principles of law, mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases as discussed hereinabove. ABSENCE OF EXPRESS EQUATION VITIATES IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY TRIBUNAL AND DISENTITLES EMPLOYEES FOR RELIEF: 16. Perusal of the paper book indicates that there is no material on record to prove and establish that the petitioner-State of Himachal Pradesh had taken any conscious decision to equate Technicians i.e. Junior Technician, Technician Grade-II and Technician Grade-I with the corresponding category of employees in the State of Punjab. In absence of any express equation, no anomaly can be inferred as has been recorded by the Tribunal in Para 10 of Impugned Order dated 30.06.2016. Even, the Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees have neither any vested nor any indefeasible right to claim parity. 16(i). While dealing with a similar fact-situation the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 77 - of Uttar Pradesh and Another Versus Virendra Bahadur Katheria and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine 1712, has mandated that parity cannot be claimed as an indefeasible and enforceable right except, where, the competent authority has taken a conscious decision to equate two posts notwithstanding their different nomenclature or their distinct qualifications. In the absence of any express equation between the two posts, right of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be said to have been infringed. Even the job relating to the creation, merger, de-merger or amalgamation of cadres within a service is the prerogative of the State, which is founded on a policy decision, and such decision is not subject to judicial review unless it is found to be brazenly offending Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, in the following terms:- 53. It needs no emphasis that prescription of pay scale for a post entails Policy decision based upon the recommendations of an expert body like Pay Commission. All that the State is obligated to ensure is that the pay structure of a promotional or higher post is not lower than the feeder cadre. Similarly, pay parity [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 78 - cannot be claimed as an indefeasible enforceable right save and except where the Competent Authority has taken a conscious decision to equate two posts notwithstanding their different nomenclature or distinct qualifications. Incidental grant of same pay scale to two or more posts, without any express equation amongst such posts, cannot be termed as an anomaly in a pay scale of a nature which can be said to have infringed the right to equality under Article 16 of our Constitution. 54. Equally well settled is that the creation, merger, de-merger or amalgamation of cadres within a service to bring efficacy or in the administrative exigencies, is the State's prerogative. The Court in exercise of its power of judicial review would sparingly interfere in such a policy decision, unless it is found to have brazenly offended Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. While examining the facts of the instant batch of cases in the light of facts of law in the case of Virendra Bahadur Katheria [supra], this Court has no hesitation to hold that in absence of any express conscious decision to equate the post of Technicians cadre existing in the State of Himachal Pradesh with the posts of Technicians [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 79 - cadre in the State of Punjab neither any equation parity could be granted by inferring anomaly qua an employee, for the reason, that equation-parity cannot be claimed as an indefeasible and enforceable right. In instant case, once the Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees were engaged on contract but after the enforcement of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services [Category/Post wise Revised Pay] Rules on 24/27.09.2012, the Respondents -Original Applicants- Employees were regularized as Junior Technicians and were appointed in the running pay band on 08.05.2013 {in contrast to contractual service which was on fixed emoluments and was not in running pay band as was not recognized by these rules} and once their pay was to be regulated in the pay structure based on minimum of pay band and grade pay prescribed against respective category/posts therefore, Impugned Order 30.06.2016 vide [Annexure P-1], directing the petitioner-State to grant pay scales prescribed by the State of Punjab contrary to and dehors the State Rules HPCS [Revised Rules] of 2012 cannot sustain and [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 80 - Impugned directions passed overlooking a material aspect that no express conscious decision existed for equating or granting parity to Technicians in Himachal with counterparts in State of Punjab and moreover, no cogent and convincing material existed which conclusively pointed towards “express equation” based on a policy decision by competent authority. In these circumstances, the Impugned Order inferring parity or equation {and by inferring anomaly} with employees in the State of Punjab qua the Technicians cannot pass the test of judicial scrutiny and the Impugned Order dated 30.06.2016 [Annexure P-1] passed by Learned Tribunal is quashed and set-aside. LIMITS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN MATTERS RELATING TO DETERMINATION OF PAY SCALES, EQUATION OF POSTS AND SALARIES: 17. While dealing with the scope of judicial review in matters relating to “classification of posts, determination of pay scales, equation of posts and salaries”, the Honble Supreme Court has mandated in case of Union of India vs Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association, (2023) 19 SCC 482, [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 81 - that these functions lie within the exclusive domain of an employer, which may be got examined by the expert body i.e. the pay commission or departmental expert body [as the case may be}. Power of judicial review cannot be invoked by the Courts so as to substitute its own wisdom vis-à-vis the evaluation to be undertaken by the expert body, who has to examine the classification of post, determination of pay structure, equation of posts and salaries prescribed by the expert body which is accepted by the executive, the State. While exercising judicial review, the Courts should be slow in showing indulgence in matters having financial implication. Unless and until a gross case of arbitrariness or unfairness revealing that grave error had crept in while fixing the pay for a post and too on the basis of cogent, convincing and conclusive material on record, Courts should be slow in showing indulgence. Moreover, an employee who asserts a claim for parity or equation or equal pay for equal work is bound to assert and establish a claim on the basis of material on [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 82 - record. In the absence of material on record, the Court cannot infer equation or parity and grant same pay scales as granted to others. The office noting’s may be attempt towards opinion formation but office noting’s by no stretch of imagination can be treated as a decision of the government. 17(i). Even the directions contained in Impugned Order amounts to violating the core principle of separation of power for the reason that every State has been vested with primary responsibility of policy formulation. The discretion vested in the State to frame a policy including the mode, manner and time and stage of issuance lies within the exclusive domain of the State. No person has any vested right to compel the State to formulate a policy at its asking and that that too in a specific manner. Courts cannot encroach upon the field marked by the Constitution for the Legislature or Executive. Courts can only examine the legality or validity of legislation or the governmental action. No person or an employee has any vested right to seek revision of pay scales or fixation [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 83 - of pay granted by another State Government for its employees. There is no Constitutional mandate that rules, norms or decisions taken for governing conditions of service of the employees in one State will ipso-facto apply to the employees of another State. Even if, one State had expressly adopted the rules, norms or decision taken by another State in the past and/or on a particular occasion and/ or with reference to an issue in specific fact-situation and therefore, even in any such eventuality, an employee does not have any enforceable and vested right to claim benefit of such adoption in perpetuality. 17(ii). Once Petitioners-State of Himachal Pradesh had notified the HP Civil Services (Category/Post wise Revised Pay) Rules on 24.09.2012 {referred to as the Re-revised Rules of 2012} granting pay scales for persons appointed after the coming into force of these Rules, by entitling them to draw pay in respective pay structure applicable for the post and these Rules prescribed the mode of fixing the pay at “minimum of pay band plus grade pay” [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 84 - based on its policy decision taken after considering various parameters including its staffing pattern, Recruitment and Promotion Rules, method of recruitment, educational qualifications, geographical, traditional and territorial conditions, administrative needs and requirements and financial resources and financial implications and other ancillary factors etc. coupled with the fact that no law commands the State of Himachal Pradesh to ipso-facto follow Punjab pattern of pay scales and once there is no express adoption of the Punjab pay scales [so far as it relates to the communication dated 23.12.2011, in instant case] and even there is “no conscious express equation -parity of posts” of Technicians in Himachal with employees in the State of Punjab and therefore, once the above foundational parameters are not satisfied in instant case, therefore, the Impugned Order is vitiated. PERVERSITY IN IMPUGNED ORDER IGNORING STAND OF PETITIONER STATE AUTHORITIES: 18. The findings recorded by Learned Tribunal in Paras 9 and 10 of the Impugned Order dated [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 85 - 30.06.2016 [Annexure P-1 in Lead Case] inferring parity-equation of the posts of Technicians {Junior Technicians/Technicians Gr-II and Technicians Gr-I} observing that the Respondents-Original Applicants- Employees discharged same duties and functions as was being discharged by their counterparts in State of Punjab was on the face of it perverse, in view of the stand taken by the Petitioner-State Authorities in Reply Affidavit before Tribunal and its reiteration in Para 6 of Impugned Order that the functions, responsibilities and duties of the Technicians [Pump Operators] in State of Himachal Pradesh are not similar to the duties in the State of Punjab and there is no similarity. Such inference of equation-parity, without there being any material on record to establish such parity is perverse and therefore, the Impugned Order cannot be permitted to operate and is accordingly interdicted and is quashed and set-aside. Based on above discussion and the principles of law outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dibyendu Bhattacharya, Tilak Raj, [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 86 - Thana Singh and Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association, [supra], and directions contained in Impugned order entitling the Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees who are employees of Petitioner State of Himachal Pradesh by granting them the pay scales as granted to its employees by the State of Punjab, by passing an order contrary to and dehors the State Rules i.e. HPCS Revised Pay Rules of 2012, cannot sustain. DIFFERENT PAY NORMS PERMISSIBLE BETWEEN TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES: 19. While adjudicating the claim for parity of employees of a Board, autonomous statutory body vis-à-vis the employees of the State of Gujarat the claim was negated that the Board employees cannot claim parity with the State Government employees as Board is an independent entity and it might have its own financial capacity and therefore its employees cannot claim parity with the employees of the State Government. Even in principle, within the same State, the claim for parity between State Board vis-à-vis the State Government employees [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 87 - was negated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Pravinchandra Rajyaguru versus Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others, (2021) 19 SCC 128, in the following terms:- 18. Being daily rated employees of the Respondent–Board, they cannot claim as of right similar treatment as Government employees. The Respondent-Board is an independent entity and it might have its own financial capacity and therefore its employees cannot claim parity with the employees of the State Government. 19. The State Government and the autonomous Board/bodies cannot be put at par. The Board has to depend upon their own financial resources. In the recent decision in the case of Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited and Another (Supra) it is observed in paragraph 32 as under: “32. The Central or State Government is empowered to levy taxes to meet out the expenses of the State. It is always a conscious decision of the Government as to how much taxes have to be levied so as to not cause excessive burden on the citizens. But the Boards and Corporations have to depend on either their own resources or seek grant from the Central/ State Government, as the case may be, for their expenditures. Therefore, the grant of benefits of higher pay scale to the Central/State Government employees stand on different footing than grant of pay scale by an instrumentality of the State.” [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 88 - Therefore, the daily rated employees of the Board cannot as a matter of right claim the parity of pay scales with the Government employees. In the backdrop of the mandate of law in the case of Rajesh Pravinchandra Rajyaguru, two 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, Impugned order dated 30.06.2016 (Annexure P-10) inferring parity or equation in favour of the Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees is without authority of law, is turned down. CONTENTION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT-ORIGINAL APPLICANT-EMPLOYEES: 20. Learned Counsel for Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees has supported the Impugned Order dated 30.06.2016 passed by Learned Tribunal. Learned Counsel fairly submits that the employees herein shall be satisfied, in case the State Authorities -petitioners are directed to give benefits as per the [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 89 - notification dated 27.09.2012 [at page 79 of the paper book] notified under HPCS [Category/Post wise Revised Pay] Rules, 2012 from the due date of completion of 2 years of regular service. {Statement is taken on record}. Taking into account the Statement made by Learned Counsel for Respondents-Original Applicants- Employees this Court, directs the State Authorities to grant-release revised pay i.e. minimum of pay band and grade pay in terms of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services [Category/Post wise Revised Pay] Rules, notified on 24.09.2012, {Annexure R-1} if admissible and if not already granted, to Respondents -Original Applicants-Employees from the date of completion of two years of regular service in lead case {based on regular service reckonable from 08.05.2013 and two years thereafter w.e.f. 8.5.2015} and similar admissible benefits, if any, to the employees in connected cases. COURTS-TRIBUNALS CAN NEITHER REWRITE RECASTE OR REFRAME RULES CONTRARY TO EXISTING STATE RULES: 21. Prescribing conditions of service, including [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 90 - grant of pay scales or revised or revised pay scales for its employees is based on a policy decision to be taken after considering various parameters including staffing pattern, recruitment and promotion Rules, method of recruitment, educational qualifications, geographical, traditional, territorial conditions and administrative requirement and need for constituting and reconstituting its services/cadres, which includes merger of cadres, de-merger, equation of posts, inflation, financial implications and financial resources and other ancillary factors. Aforesaid task is assigned to experts by constituting a pay commission or any like expert body. On receipt of recommendations from expert body, the State Government after due deliberation accepts recommendations either wholly or in part. Upon acceptance of recommendations by the Government, the State Authorities formally notifies the acceptance in the form of Pay Rules. After issuance of these Rules, that a right accrues to an employee for getting benefit of pay as per notified revised pay or rerevised pay rules and norms. In this backdrop, once the Petitioners-State [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 91 - of Himachal Pradesh had notified the HP Civil Services (Category/Post wise Revised Pay) Rules on 24.09.2012 {referred to as Re-revised Rules of 2012} granting pay scales for persons appointed after coming into force of these Rules, entitling the employees, including Respondent-Original Applicants- Employees to draw pay in respective pay structure applicable for the post, by prescribing the mode for fixing the pay of such an employee at the “minimum of pay band plus grade pay”. The State Rules of 2012 having occupied the field were binding on the State as well as employees, unless the same were questioned and were declared ultra-vires. Presumption of constitutionality is attached to these Rules. No law commands the State of Himachal Pradesh to ipso-facto follow the rules or norms notified for its employees by State of Punjab or another State. The State of Himachal Pradesh is not legally bound to follow the pay scales notified by State of Punjab automatically. Even any change carried out by the State of Punjab or another State is neither ipso-facto applicable nor can be [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 92 - sought to be enforced by an employee. Notwithstanding the above, a State may in its wisdom, decide to follow and apply the rules or norms governing the conditions of service, including pay or revised pay notified by another State or the State of Punjab by express adoption and even equation or parity cannot be claimed as of right, unless such parity is based on a “conscious express adoption by the State”. In the instant case, so far as the communication dated 23.12.2011, issued by the State of Punjab is concerned, nothing has been placed on record that the same was expressly adopted by the State of Himachal Pradesh. In the absence of any express adoption, the directions contained in the Impugned order entitling the Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees who are employees of the Petitioner State by granting them the pay scales as existing in the State of Punjab by acting contrary to and dehors the State Rules HPCS Revised Pay Rules of 2012 so as to rewrite, recast and reframe the State Rules on the [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 93 - basis of rules existing in State of Punjab, is certainly beyond the power and authority vested in the Tribunal-Courts, in view of the principles mandated by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Dr Ashwini Kumar vs Union of India, (2020) 13 SCC 585 {Para 13}. The Impugned Order violates the core principle of separation of power by encroaching upon the field of policy making and the power to frame Rules under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Courts can only examine the legality or validity of legislation or the governmental action. No person or an employee has any vested right to seek the revision of pay or fixation of pay as granted by another State. Besides, nothing has been placed on record by the Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees to assert and establish that the State Rules of 2012 have violated any of the fundamental or legal rights or were issued by acting in deviating of express adoption accorded by the State of Himachal Pradesh. CONCLUSION: 21. In view of discussion and based on the [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 94 - material on record and principles of law as referred to above and in facts of instant case, the questions formulated are answered as under: In reference to the Question no (i) in Para 10, as to whether the Impugned Order passed by the Learned State Administrative Tribunal on 30.06.2016 [Annexure P-1], directing to grant the pay scales prescribed by the State of Punjab ipso- facto to the employees in State of Himachal Pradesh is answered in the negative, for the reason, that the State of Himachal Pradesh had notified the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services [Category/Post wise Revised Pay] Rules, on 24.09.2012 and its Schedule dated 27.09.2012 giving rerevised pay scale on the basis of minimum of pay band and grade pay. No employee in the State of Himachal Pradesh has any vested right to seek benefit of revised pay scales as granted by the State of Punjab. The State of Himachal Pradesh cannot be compelled to follow conditions of service, including pay scales prescribed by another State, including the State of Punjab. There is no law commanding the Petitioner- [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 95 - State of Himachal Pradesh to follow the Punjab Pay Revision Rules or Regulations or Norms. Even if there is no legal obligation on the State of Himachal Pradesh to follow the Punjab Pay Rules or norms yet, the State of Himachal Pradesh may, in its wisdom, as a policy matter, may decide to follow the Punjab Pay Rules and norms by way of an “express adoption”. An adoption cannot be an adoption in perpetuity. In the past, in case the State of Himachal had expressly adopted the conditions of service as prescribed by another State or the State of Punjab therefore, the State of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow, all or any of the changes carried out by another State or the State of Punjab automatically. Unless and until the changed norms or new norms notified by another State or the State of Punjab are expressly adopted regarding an event or instance or norm specific, depending upon facts of each case, till then, such changed or new or altered rules or norms are not ipso-facto binding on the State of Himachal Pradesh. Once the State Rules of [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 96 - 2012 hold the field coupled with the fact that Respondents-Original Applicants-Employees have not assailed the HPCS Revised Pay Rules 2012 in instant proceedings. No law commands the State of Himachal Pradesh is bound to follow the pay scales notified by another State or by the State of Punjab. Even nothing has been placed on record to establish that the communication dated 23.12.2011 issued by the State of Punjab was “expressly adopted” by the State of Himachal Pradesh. Further, issue as to whether the pay of employees is to be revised or not and in case it is to be revised then, the mode, manner, extent of revision and date of its applicability is dependent upon a policy decision to be taken by the State Authorities. For this purpose, the State may in its wisdom, refer the issue regarding revision of pay by an expert body, {named as Pay Commission or any other departmental body of experts), who examines pros and cons, on the basis of various parameters like staffing pattern, the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, the method of recruitment, [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 97 - educational qualifications, geographical /traditional/ territorial conditions, administrative needs, financial resources, inflation, financial implications, issue of examining equation of posts, need for structuring, restructuring {including merger and bifurcation of existing cadres or services} etc and then to furnish a report to the State Government. Such a report, is subject to examination and approval by the State Government, who may, by way of a policy decision, in its wisdom, decide to accept the report wholly or in part as it is or with modifications. It is after acceptance of the report and issuance of formal notification regarding the revised pay rules and norms, a right and entitlement accrues to an employee for receiving the revised pay as per the said Rules or norms which hold the field. “Presumption of constitutionality” is attached to the Statutory Rules” notified under provisio to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. An employee has a right to assail statutory Rules, alleging violation of any fundamental rights or any legal rights. The Courts or Tribunal can neither rewrite or recast [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 98 - or reframe or add anything to existing statutory rules {by legislating or making additions to State Rules of 2012, with higher “initial pay” based on Punjab Communication, is totally at variance and is contrary to the State Rules of 2012 notified by State of Himachal Pradesh} by encroaching upon the domain of executive and the rule making power of the executive under the provisio to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The State Rules of 2012 cannot be rendered nugatory, redundant and otiose, without any challenge having been raised to the said State Rule. Even, the Impugned Order passed by inferring anomaly in absence of any material on record and that too between the employees of two different States is without any authority of law. In reference to the Question no (ii) in Para 10, as to whether the Learned Tribunal could infer equation-parity between the employees in the State of Himachal Pradesh vis-à-vis the employees in State of Punjab in absence of any material on record to establish parity-equation, is answered [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 99 - in the negative, for the reason that the onus to establish “equal pay or parity or equation” lies on the employee, as per the mandate of the Honble Supreme Court in cases of Jagjit Singh, Dibyendu Bhattacharya Tilak Raj, Thana Singh and Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association, (supra) mandating that “classification of posts, determination of pay scales and equation of posts and salaries” lie within the exclusive domain of an employer, which may be got examined by the expert body i.e. the pay commission or the departmental expert body [as the case may be}. The power of judicial review cannot be invoked by the Courts so as to substitute its own wisdom vis-à-vis the classification of post, determination of pay structure, equation of posts and salaries prescribed by the expert body, which is accepted by the executive i.e. the State. While exercising judicial review, the Courts should be slow in showing indulgence in matters having financial implication, unless a gross case of arbitrariness or unfairness is established by the aggrieved party, by asserting a claim, on the [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 100 - basis of cogent, convincing and conclusive material on record. Unless and until there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay for a post. An employee who asserts a claim for parity or “equal pay for equal work” is bound to prove the same on the basis of the material on record. In absence of material on record, the Court cannot infer equality or parity and grant same pay scales as granted to others. Even the office notings may be attempt towards opinion formation and these notings cannot in any manner by no stretch of imagination be treated as a decision of the government. In these circumstances, once there is no law commanding the State of Himachal Pradesh to follow the Rules-Norms governing Pay of another State or the Pay Norms issued by the State of Punjab and in absence of any such law, even there is nothing on record to establish “express adoption” of the Rules-Norms issued by the State of Punjab therefore, the non-fulfilment of these conditions and in the absence of any material on record to [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 101 - substantiate parity or equation [when cadres are different or employer is different, as in instant case] therefore, the directions contained in the Impugned Order dated 30.06.2016 {Annexure P-1} inferring parity and anomaly between the employees of different States amount to rendering the State Rules of 2012 otiose and nugatory ; and impugned directions tantamount to re-writing or reframe or recast or reframe or add anything to existing statutory rules {by adding words to State Rules of 2012, as has been done by adding or reading the words with higher “initial pay” based on the Punjab Communication, is totally at variance and is contrary to the State Rules of 2012 notified by the State of Himachal Pradesh} by encroaching upon the domain of the executive, by overstepping its power and authority, which cannot be permitted to sustain, being perverse. Accordingly, the Impugned Order cannot sustain and the same is accordingly quashed and set-aside. 22. Based on the material on record and the above discussion, and in facts of these cases, this [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 102 - Court has no hesitation to hold that the Learned Tribunal erred in passing the Impugned Order by overstepping its powers, jurisdiction and sphere of functions {Lakshman-rekha} as demarcated by the Constitution of India. In these circumstances, the Impugned Order dated 30.06.2016 {Annexure P-1} passed by the Learned State Administrative Tribunal cannot pass the test of judicial scrutiny and the same is interdicted. Accordingly, the Impugned Order is quashed and set-aside. DIRECTIONS: 23. In view of above discussion and for reasons recorded hereinabove, Lead Case and other connected cases filed by the Petitioner(s)-State Authorities, are allowed, in part, in the following terms:- (i). Impugned Order dated 30.06.2016 {Annexure P-1} passed by Learned State Administrative Tribunal is quashed and set-aside; (ii). Impugned Order passed by Learned Tribunal mandating the petitioner-State of Himachal Pradesh to grant pay scales [pay band, grade pay and initial start as granted by State of Punjab on 23.12.2011 [at Page 48/50 of paper [2025:HHC:46516-DB] - 103 - book] to Respondents-Original Applicants is rendered inoperative, being dehors HPCS [Category/Post wise Revised Pay] Rules dated 2012; (iii). Reference to directions (i) & (ii) above, Civil Writ Petitions i.e. CWP No 372 of 2017 and CWP No 776, 1058, 1243, 1592, 1593, 1848, 1870 of 2017 filed by the Petitioners-State are allowed; (iv) CWPOA No 6663 of 2020 is dismissed, except to the extent of directions in (v) infra, hereinunder; (v) Before parting and based on Statement of Learned Counsel(s) for Original Applicants-Employees, State shall grant Rerevised Pay as per HPCS [Category /Post wise Revised Pay] Rules 2012 {page 79 of paper book} w.e.f. 01.10.2012 and thereafter as Technicians [Junior Technician, Technician Gr-II, Technician Gr-I], necessary benefits with admissible consequential benefits be released, {if not already released} ; (vi) Parties to bear respective costs; In aforesaid terms, all writ petitions and pending miscellaneous application(s) if any shall stand disposed of, accordingly. (G.S. Sandhawalia) (Ranjan Sharma) Chief Justice Judge June 24, 2025 (Bharadwaj/TM)