HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 12272 of 2022 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Alok Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Sujata Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondents. 2. Petitioner’s claim to increase pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 + GP 4200/- to pay scale of Rs. 9300- 34800 + GP 4600/- from the date of payment was rejected by a reasoned order dated 20.03.2022 after considering the proposal dated 10.01.2013 submitted by Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Mathura as well as that Computer Programmers appointed in other Cantonment Boards are paid GP 4600/-, however, every Cantonment Board being an autonomous body, therefore, not bound by Grade Pay provided to other employees. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that on principle of equal work equal pay and since Computer Programmers in other Cantonment Boards who are governed by same provision of Cantonment Board Employees Service Rules, 2021 as well as their posts were also created under some provision of CFSR, 1937 read with Cantonment Account Code, 1924, therefore, petitioner be granted higher grade pay of Rs. 4600/- though he is not able to show any provision of fixing the manner of grade pay. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a letter dated 31.12.2010 wherein in its paragraph 3, it is stated that the post of Computer Programmer shall be directly equated with its counterpart in the State of U.P. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned order that other Cantonment Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Alok Mishra, Dhruv Kumar Dhuriya, Kiran Kumar Arora Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhishek Mishra, C.S.C., Siyata Chaudhary, Sujata Choudhary Ved Prakash .....Petitioner(s) Chief Executive Officer And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) Boards, being autonomous body, may fix grade pay independently without being getting influenced by grade pay of similarly situated Computer Programmer in other Cantonment Boards. 6. I have perused above submissions and perused the records. 7. It is well settled that determination of salary is prerogative of employer in accordance with established provision of service rules and only in extraordinary circumstances, it may interfere. 8. No doubt, in present case, petitioner was paid less grade pay of 4200/- in comparison to Computer Programmer appointed in other Cantonment Boards having grade pay of Rs. 4600/-. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner has not able to show whether in regard to other posts, such disparity exists or not. 10. The argument raised that post shall be equated with its counterpart in State of U.P. in grade pay of Rs. 4600/- of Computer Programmer is not helpful to the case of petitioner since admittedly, the Cantonment Boards are autonomous bodies who create their own funds. 11. Nothing concrete is placed on record which could show manner of fixation of grade pay as well as it could not be denied that Cantonment Boards are autonomous bodies, therefore, reasons assigned in impugned order cannot be interfered. 12. Even after above observations, Court is of the view that in order to keep a parity amongst employees of different Cantonment Boards and if it is followed in regard to other employees and if it does not impose much financial burden on Cantonment Boards, the concerned respondents may still take a decision and while taking a decision, order impugned will not come in the way. 13. The concerned respondents will also take note of averments made in paragraph 5 of counter affidavit filed by respondent-1. 14. Writ petition stands disposed of with above observations. September 4, 2025 N. Sinha WRIA No. 12272 of 2022 2 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad