Judgment : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Petitioner is a Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 before the Registrar Trade Unions, Himachal Pradesh. It is seeking to espouse the cause of its members-the Conductors working in Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC)-respondent No.2, concerning anomaly in their pay-scale. 2. The case Following facts are not in dispute:- 2(i) Respondent-HRTC came into existence on 02.10.1974. It framed Recruitment & Promotions Rules for its employees in the year 1976 and carried out amendments thereto from time to time in accordance with law. Post of Conductor in the respondent No.2-Corporation was in the pay-scale of Rs.110-200 prior to 01.01.1978 and in pay-scale of Rs. 400-600 as on 01.01.1978. The same was the pay- scale for the post of Clerk in the respondent No.2- Corporation. During third general revision of pay-scales, post of Conductor in respondent No.2-Corporation was assigned pay-scale of Rs.950-1800 with initial start of Rs.1000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Post of Clerk in the respondent No.2- Corporation was also allocated the same pay scale. In the next general revision of pay-scales (4th), Rs.3120-5160 was the pay-scale for the post of Conductor in the HRTC. The same pay scale was given to the post of Clerk. In the 5th general revision of pay-scales, effective from 01.01.2006, the post of Conductor and that of Clerk in the respondent No.2- Corporation again had the same pay scale of Rs.5910-20200 + 1900 (GP). The above position is tabulated as under (provided by the respondent in office letter dated 29.10.2025):- 2(ii) The above table makes it evident that right from the first revision of pay-scale till the 4th revision, post of Conductor and Clerk in the respondent No.2-Corporation enjoyed the same pay-scale. Problem arose w.e.f. 01.10.2012. The genesis of the problem lay in a notification issued by the respondent No.1-State Government on 27.09.2012. This notification was issued in exercise of powers conferred by Rules 3 & 9 of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Category/Post wise Revised Pay) Rules 2012. The notification gave benefit of revised Pay Band and Grade Pay to 26 categories of posts in the State. The category of Clerk figured at Sr. No.15 of the notification. This notification was issued in exercise of powers conferred by Rules 3 & 9 of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Category/Post wise Revised Pay) Rules 2012. The notification gave benefit of revised Pay Band and Grade Pay to 26 categories of posts in the State. The category of Clerk figured at Sr. No.15 of the notification. The revised Pay Band and Grade Pay given to this category under the aforesaid notification dated 27.09.2012 was as under: - The post of Clerk, which was in the pay-scale of Rs.5910-20200 +1900 (GP) with initial start of Rs.7810 was to get pay-scale of Rs.10300-34800 + 3200 (GP) after two years of regular service w.e.f. 01.10.2012. The post of Conductor which admittedly did not exist in the respondent- State Government, was not included in the State notification dated 27.09.2012. 2(iii) Based upon the State Government notification dated 27.09.2012, respondent No.2-Corporation issued its office order on 24.10.2013 allowing its employees the same pay-scales as allowed by the State Government in the notification dated 27.09.2012 for the posts included in the said notification. Accordingly, the post of Clerk in the respondent No.2-Corporation, which was enjoying the pay- scale of Rs.5910-20200 +1900 (GP) was to have the pay- scale of Rs.10300-34800+3200 (GP) after two years of regular service w.e.f. 01.10.2012. The arrears for the period 01.10.2012 to 30.09.2013 were ordered to be credited in the Provident Fund Accounts of the concerned individuals and were to be paid in cash w.e.f. 01.10.2013. The pay-scale of the Conductor in the respondent No.2-Corporation did not undergo any revision save and except enhancement of Grade Pay from Rs.1900/- to Rs.2400/-. For better comprehension, the revision carried out by respondent No.2-Corporation in the pay scales for the post of Clerk and Conductor under office order dated 24.10.2013 is tabulated hereinafter:- The arrears of this A/C for the period w.e.f. 01.10.2012 to 30.09.2013 shall be credited in provident Fund A/C of individuals and will be paid in cash w.e.f. 01.10.2013.” The above reflects a disparity between the pay-scale of Conductor and Clerk after 01.10.2012, inasmuch as post of Clerk was placed in pay-scale of Rs.10300-34800 + 3200 (GP) on completion of two years of regular service while post of Conductor remained in the pay scale of Rs.5910- 20200+revised GP of Rs.2400/-. According to the respondents, the pay-scale of Conductor was as per Punjab pattern, adopted by the respondent No.2-Corporation. According to the respondents, the pay-scale of Conductor was as per Punjab pattern, adopted by the respondent No.2-Corporation. 2(iv) As per the to instructions in form of office letter dated 29.10.2025, addressed by respondent No.1 to the Additional Chief Secretary (Transport), Government of Himachal Pradesh, placed on record by learned counsel for respondent No.2-Corpration during hearing of the case, several representations from the HRTC Conductors Union were made to the concerned authority for removing the anomaly that had crept in the pay-scale of the Conductors vis-à-vis the pay-scale of Clerks w.e.f. 01.10.2012 The matter was placed before the service Committee of respondent No.2- Corporation. The service committee in its meeting convened 13.07.2015, approved the Pay Band and Grade Pay to the category of Conductors as notified by HRTC in the office order dated 24.10.2013 w.e.f. 01.10.2012. The matter was placed before the Board of Directors in its 151st meeting held on 18.06.2022. The BOD directed to place the matter before the Service Committee. The matter was eventually taken to the Finance Department (Pay Revision), which gave following advice.:- "Examined in consultation with Finance (Pay-Revision). It is observed that two posts carrying equal pay scales during pre-revisions does not mean that in future also they will claim parity of pay scales, for this purpose wholesome parity between two posts needs to be determined. Several factors have to be considered such as source of appointment/recruitment, qualification, nature of work, the value thereto, responsibilities, reliabilities, experience, confidentiality, functional need, feeder & promotional categories, etc. befor parity or particular pay scale can be considered. There is no parity between the post of Conductor and Clerks. The FD regrets its inability to concur in the proposal.” 2(v) Pertinently, 6th General Revision of pay-scales was given effect to by the respondent-State under notification dated 03.01.2022 promulgating Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay Rules) Rules, 2022 w.e.f. 01.01.2016. Under the said notification, as amended on 06.09.2022, the post of Clerk was placed in Level-3 pay structure of Rs.20200+64000 with option to exercise factor 2.59, 2.25 or 15% enhancement etc. whichever was beneficial to the individual. The respondent No.2-Corporation also adopted the above revised pay-scales on 22.03.2022. Under the said notification, as amended on 06.09.2022, the post of Clerk was placed in Level-3 pay structure of Rs.20200+64000 with option to exercise factor 2.59, 2.25 or 15% enhancement etc. whichever was beneficial to the individual. The respondent No.2-Corporation also adopted the above revised pay-scales on 22.03.2022. Under the 2022 revised pay-scales effective from 01.01.2016, post of Conductor was also placed by the respondent No.2-Corporation in the same pay-scale that was given to Clerk i.e. Rs.20200+64000 with option to exercise factor 2.59, 2.25 or 15% enhancement whichever was beneficial to the individual. To reflect the pay scales enjoyed by the Conductors and Clerk in the respondent No.2- Corporation w.e.f. 1978 till date. Following table sums it all [extracted from respondent No.1’s office letter dated 29.10.2025 addressed to Additional Chief Secretary (Transport), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh] : - In the above background, petitioner-Union has instituted this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “(I) That the respondent Corporation may kindly be directed to revise the pay scale/band and grade pay of the members of petitioner union from Rs.5910-20200+2400 grade pay to Rs. 10300-34,800 + 3200 grade pay with effect from 1.10.2013 with arrears. (II) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay, revised pay/grade pay to the members of the petitioner- Union at par with the analogous post of Clerk in the Himachal Road Transport Corporation as has been followed by the Government/respondents in the earlier Notifications.” 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. Consideration 4(i) The table drawn in para-2(v) gives a clear picture that but for the period w.e.f. 01.10.2012 to 01.01.2016, the post of Conductor and Clerk had been placed in the same pay-scales, even though their duties/responsibilities/ required qualification/ nature of work might be different. Save and except for a brief period of four years, historically these posts had enjoyed the same pay-scale throughout. The reason for the anomaly in the pay-scale of these posts during the four years’ period is also obvious. The reason being a separate revision carried out by the respondent-State for some of the posts in its purview under notification dated 27.09.2012 including the post of Clerk. The post of Conductor, which was not there in the State, was not part of the notification. The State notification was given effect to by the HRTC while issuing its office order dated 24.10.2013. The post of Conductor, which was not there in the State, was not part of the notification. The State notification was given effect to by the HRTC while issuing its office order dated 24.10.2013. Consequently, post of Clerk in HRTC got upward pay-scale of Rs.10300-34800+3200 (GP) after two years of regular service in view of State notification dated 27.09.2012, however, no such revision was carried out in the pay-scale of Conductor, presumably for want of placement of category of Conductor in the State notification dated 27.09.2012. This anomaly has now been removed by the respondent-HRTC in the next revision of pay-scales carried out on 03.01.2022 and enforced w.e.f. 01.01.2016. In the next General Revision of pay scale that was enforced w.e.f. 01.01.2016, posts of Conductor and Clerk have again been placed by the respondent No.2-Corporation in the same pay-scale. 4(ii) There is no escape from conclusion in the given facts and circumstances that both the posts (Clerk & Conductor) have been enjoying the same pay-scales historically. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to Union of India and Others Vs. DGOF Employees Association and Anr. [ Civil Appeal 1663 of 2016 decided 09.11.2023.] Respondent therein was an association of employees in the Headquarters of Ordinance Factory Board. It was seeking upgradation of pay-scales of Assistants and Personal Assistants of the Ordinance Factory Board Headquarters as had been given to the similarly placed employees of the Central Secretariat Service and equivalent posts in Armed Force Headquarters Civil Services and similar other cadres. The Ministry of Defence did not approve the same. The Central Administrative Tribunal also declined the prayer. The Hon’ble High Court, however, was of the view that members of the respondent-Association had been historically treated as equal to CCS/CSSS employees and had earlier enjoyed equal pay and all benefits, hence, a direction was issued by the High Court to the appellants to fix the members of respondent- Association and other similarly placed Assistants working in Ordinance Factory and OFT in the same pay scale as was given to the Assistants similarly placed in CCS/CSSS, Army Headquarters, UPSC, CAT, MEA, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs etc. w.e.f. the same date as 2 Civil Appeal 1663 of 2016 decided 09.11.2023. was first given to them. The appellant assailed the order passed by the High Court before the Hon’ble Apex Court. w.e.f. the same date as 2 Civil Appeal 1663 of 2016 decided 09.11.2023. was first given to them. The appellant assailed the order passed by the High Court before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court duly noticed the objections of the appellant based upon several precedents that fixation of pay-scale is in the realm of the employer; the Court should exercise restraint, it should not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like Pay Commissions, which undertake rigorous exercise for job evaluation after taking into consideration several factors like nature of work, the duties, accountability and responsibilities attached to the posts, the extent of powers conferred on the person holding a particular post, the promotional avenues, the statutory rules governing the conditions of service, the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs etc (Reference:- State of Punjab & Haryana Vs. Jagjit Singh and Ors. (2017) 1 SCC 148 and Union of India Vs. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association and Another (2023) SCC Online SC 173) Hon’ble Apex Court also took note of submission of the respondent that though carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed by the Court as it may upset balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well, nevertheless, it will not be correct to lay down as an absolute rule that merely because determination and granting pay-scales is the prerogative of the executive, the Court has no jurisdiction to examine any pay-structure and aggrieved employee cannot be left with no remedy if he is unjustly treated by arbitrary state action or inaction, except to go on knocking at the doors of the executive or the legislature. (Reference:- Union of India Vs. Dineshan K.K. (2008)1 SCC 586 ) The Supreme Court held that though Courts would not undertake the exercise of determining the pay- scale keeping in view the nature of work by comparing employees who are not similarly placed in cases where exercise of determining such complex issues would arise, however, where entitlement is denied due to irrational consideration without application of mind by the employer, in the given facts, without undertaking the exercise regarding which restraint is applicable, interference can be made. And one such factor acknowledged was disturbance of historical similarity in the pay-scales. Some relevant paras from the decision are as under:- “10. And one such factor acknowledged was disturbance of historical similarity in the pay-scales. Some relevant paras from the decision are as under:- “10. A cumulative perusal of the opinion expressed by this Court would indicate that though the Courts would not undertake the exercise of determining the pay scale keeping in view the nature of the work by comparing employees who are not similarly placed in cases where the exercise of determining such complex issues would arise, at the same time, relief cannot be denied to the employees when the entitlement is denied due to irrational consideration without application of mind to the facts involved in the case by the employer, thereby denying the benefits to the employees. If this aspect of the matter is kept in view, a perusal of the consideration made by the High Court as seen from the portion reproduced above from the judgment of the High Court, it would disclose that the High Court has not undertaken the exercise regarding which restraint has been expressed by this Court. However, on the admitted facts and the earlier situation which existed, a consideration has been made keeping in view the very recommendation of the Pay Commission in reckoning the appropriate application of the pay scale. In that regard, all that has been adverted to by the High Court is as to whether the employees who are the members of the respondent and are employed in the headquarters are similarly placed as that of the employees of CSS/CSSS and in that regard has considered the matter further to ensure that the members of the respondent are not discriminated upon. 11. ………………. 12. ……………… 13. Further, what was also taken into consideration by the High Court is the historical similarity in pay scales which existed prior to the recommendations in the Sixth CPC. Such historical similarity which had existed was taken note and, in that light, the pay scale which was applicable was taken into consideration and had accordingly arrived at the conclusion that the employees in the headquarters of the Ordnance Factories being similarly placed cannot be discriminated. Therefore, such consideration in the instant case would fall within the parameters as permitted by this Court. Also, in the present circumstance, the High Court has adverted to the fact situation and has thereby rectified the pay anomaly. Therefore, such consideration in the instant case would fall within the parameters as permitted by this Court. Also, in the present circumstance, the High Court has adverted to the fact situation and has thereby rectified the pay anomaly. In fact, the question of parity with regard to the pay scale to the Assistants in the lower formations in the Indian Navy with that of the Assistants in CSS was held as discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution by this Court in the case of All India Naval Clerks Association and Others vs. Union of India and Others in Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.29204 of 2019 dated 27.07.2022. 14. As noted by the High Court, it is evident that parity of pay scales vis-à-vis LDCs, UDCs, Assistants/PAs and Stenographers, was maintained even prior to 01.01.1986 under the Third Central Pay Commission recommendations (for the period of 01.01.1973 to 31.03.1985). This parity was continued in the Fourth Central Pay Commission recommendations (with effect from 01.01.1986 to 31.12.1995) and the Fifth Central Pay Commission recommendations (for the period 01.01.1996 to 14.09.2006). The post of Assistants, PAs and Stenographers is governed by Director General Ordnance Factories Headquarters Civil Service Rules, 1977. 15. Be that as it may, in the present facts the perusal of the judgment passed by the High Court impugned herein would indicate that the High Court having kept in view the legal, as well as the factual aspects, has not proceeded in a manner so as to equate two sets of employees in different organizations. But, keeping in view the recommendation of the Pay Commission and the applicability of the pay scales recommended to similarly placed employees employed in the headquarters and on noticing discrimination despite historical similarity has merely rectified the error, which does not call for interference.” 4(iii) The present case also has somewhat similar issue. It is not that the duties, responsibilities, qualifications, rules etc. attached to the two posts in question are being compared for the purpose of determining their pay-scales by the Court. Nonetheless, the fact cannot be ignored that historically both the posts were in the same pay-scale. They are still in the same pay-scale, as the anomaly which cropped up in the pay- scales of the two categories of the posts w.e.f. 01.10.2012, was obliterated by the respondent No.2-Corporation itself w.e.f. 01.01.2016. Nonetheless, the fact cannot be ignored that historically both the posts were in the same pay-scale. They are still in the same pay-scale, as the anomaly which cropped up in the pay- scales of the two categories of the posts w.e.f. 01.10.2012, was obliterated by the respondent No.2-Corporation itself w.e.f. 01.01.2016. Save and except the period of four years i.e. w.e.f. 01.10.2012 to 01.01.2016, both the posts have been in the same pay-scale. Incidentally, the respondents have not even refuted the assertions of the petitioner pleaded in the rejoinder alongwith supporting documents that as many as 379 of the Conductors, as on 07.08.2021 had been deployed by respondent No.2-Corportion to discharge the duties other than their own duties. In terms of the documents supplied to the petitioner by the respondent No.2-Corporation under Right to Information Act, these Conductors had been discharging duties in various other capacities i.e. deployment in/as Assistant Adda Incharge, Adda Cashier, Asstt D.T.Cell, R.M. Office, CBA Shimla, Accounts Section, Regional Office, Adda Duty, CBA Acctts. Control Room (Booking Duty), Denomination Cell, Garage Section, Posted at Petrol Pump, Ledger Keeper, Adda Cashier, Regional Cashier, DA Garage and Passing out of outsider vehicles, Incharge CBA, Contingency Bill Clerk, Diary Dispatch/Stationary, Store Inventory, Office Duty, Booking Duty, Pass Duty etc. 4(iv) Looking from any angle, it has to be held that there was indeed an anomaly in the pay-scale of the post of Conductor in the respondent No.2-Corporation that existed w.e.f. 01.10.2012 to 01.01.2016. Conductors were required to be placed in the same pay-scale for this period as was released to the Clerks in the respondent No.2-Corporation, there being historical similarity in the pay-scales of these two posts, which are still enjoying the same pay-scales. 5. Hence, for the all the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to release the same pay-scale to the post of Conductor for the period 01.10.2012 to 01.01.2016 as given by respondent No.2- Corporation to that of Clerks under office order dated 24.10.2013. This exercise be carried out within a period of eight weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.