JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following substantive reliefs: - “i)That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent State to place the members of the petitioners No. 1 and 2 association/federation and petitioners No. 3 to 5 in the pay band of Rs. 5910-20200/-+GP 2400 with initial start of  Rs. 9880/- w.e.f. 01.10.2012 on issuance of notification dated 27.09.2012 by the State of Himachal Pradesh, similarly as was done by the State of Punjab while issuing notification dated 15.12.2011 placing the drivers in the pay scale of  Rs. 5910-20200+GP2400 with initial start of  Rs. 9880/- and further issue writ of certiorari quashing notification dated 27.09.2012 to the extent whereby the member of the petitioners. No. 1 and 2 associations/federation were placed in the pay scale of  Rs. 5910+20200+GP2000 with initial start of  Rs. 8240/- and after two years of regular service at Grade Pay  Rs. 2400/-. ii) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent State to grant the members of the petitioner No. 1 and 2 association/federation basic pay of  Rs. 9880/- after completion of two years of regular service once they were placed in the grade pay of  Rs. 2400/- as per the notification dated 27.09.2012. iii) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent State to fix the pay scale of the petitioners as per the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022 and scheduled attached thereto at  Rs. 25,600/- as their basic pay since the Grade Pay of the members of the petitioners No. 1 and 2 association/ federation was  Rs. 2400/- and further direct the respondent State to not to consider the members of the petitioners No. 1 and 2 association/ federation in the basic pay of  Rs. 8240/- and reduced their Grade Pay to  Rs. 2000/-, but to consider their Grade Pay at  Rs. 2400/- as was being grated to them after two years of regular service and fixed their basic pay at  Rs. 25600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2016. iv) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent  State  to  grant  basic  pay  of Rs. 2000/-, but to consider their Grade Pay at  Rs. 2400/- as was being grated to them after two years of regular service and fixed their basic pay at  Rs. 25600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2016. iv) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent  State  to  grant  basic  pay  of Rs. 30400/- after two years of regular service as has been done in the case of Steno Typist and Forest Guard who had been placed at Level-5 in terms of notification dated 06.09.2022 notifying Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022. v) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent State to remove the anomaly operating in the pay scale of the petitioners vis- a-vis that of the clerks as in terms of the notification dated 27.09.2012 and to grant them pay scale of  Rs. 10300-34800+GP3200.” 2. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 represent the category of Drivers working in State Government Departments and the Public Sector Undertakings managed, controlled and run by the State Government. Petitioners No. 3 to 5 also belong to the category of Drivers and are espousing their individual cause by way of this petition. Thus, the petitioners have joined hands on a common cause of action. 3. Petitioners, by way of instant petition, have raised a specific grievance that they have been discriminated in respect of grant of revised pay scales. It is alleged by the petitioners that though the State Government of Himachal Pradesh follows Punjab Government in the matter of grant of the pay scales to its employees, but in the case of petitioners, deviation has been made without any justifiable reason. It is also the case of the petitioners that while implementing the decision to grant revised pay scales to certain categories of its employees vide notification dated 27.9.2012, the State Government has created, an anomalous position, which in turn has resulted in placing the petitioners in a disadvantageous position during implementation of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022, notified on 03.01.2022 (for short the, “2022 pay rules”. In this manner, the petitioners have alleged that they have been put to loss of  Rs. 4,300/- per month. 4. As per petitioners, the State Government of Himachal Pradesh has no Pay Commission of its own. In this manner, the petitioners have alleged that they have been put to loss of  Rs. 4,300/- per month. 4. As per petitioners, the State Government of Himachal Pradesh has no Pay Commission of its own. It has always been following the recommendations of the Punjab Pay Commission as adopted in that State. It is averred that before implementation of the 5th Pay Commission, recommendations w.e.f. 01.01.2006, the Drivers were granted the Pay Scale of  Rs. 3300-6200/- and this scale was above the scale of Clerks, who were placed in the Pay Scale of  Rs. 3120-5160/-. After implementation of the recommendations of 5th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006, the Clerks were placed in Pay Band of  Rs. 5910-20200+1900/- G.P. and their initial start was kept at  Rs. 7810/-. The Drivers were also placed in the same Pay Band but with higher Grade Pay i.e.  Rs. 5910- 20200/- +2000/- G.P. and initial start of  Rs. 8240/-. 5. The Department of Finance in Punjab, issued notification dated 15.12.2011, and thereby revised pay scales of certain categories of its employees. The Clerks were placed in the Pay Band of  Rs. 10,300-34,800/- +2400/-G.P. with initial start at  Rs. 9880/- w.e.f. 01.10.2011. Another revision was made in the case of Clerks w.e.f. 01.12.2011, and they were placed in the Pay Band of  Rs. 10,300-34800+3200/-G.P. with initial start at  Rs. 13,500/-. The Drivers in terms of aforesaid notification were placed in the Pay Band of  Rs. 5910- 20200+2400/-G.P. with initial start at  Rs. 9880/-. Correspondingly, the Government of Himachal Pradesh also issued notice dated 27.07.2012 and thereby notified pay revision of certain categories of its employees. The Clerks were placed in the Pay Band of  Rs. 5910- 20200+1900/-G.P.,  with  further  enhancement  of  Rs. 10300-34800+3200/-G.P. after two years. The Drivers were placed in the Pay Band of  Rs. 5910-20200+2000/- G.P. with initial start of  Rs. 8240/- and  Rs. 5910- 20200+2400/-G.P. after two years. 6. The petitioners claim that even after the increase of Grade Pay from  Rs. 2000/- to  Rs. 2400/- after two years, the initial scale of the petitioners was kept at Rs. 8240/-, whereas it should have been  Rs. 9880/-. 7. Thereafter, 2022 rules were notified by the State Government on 03.01.2022 with its applicability from 01.01.2016. Since, the initial start of the petitioners was kept at  Rs. 8240/- in the pre-revised scale even though the Grade Pay had been increased to  Rs. 8240/-, whereas it should have been  Rs. 9880/-. 7. Thereafter, 2022 rules were notified by the State Government on 03.01.2022 with its applicability from 01.01.2016. Since, the initial start of the petitioners was kept at  Rs. 8240/- in the pre-revised scale even though the Grade Pay had been increased to  Rs. 2400/-, the Drivers in terms of 2022 Rules, were fixed at  Rs. 21,300/- instead of Rs. 25,600/-. 8. The petitioners claim that in the pre-revised Pay Band of  Rs. 5910-20200/- with  Rs. 2400/-GP, the initial scale of the petitioners was liable to be fixed at  Rs. 9880/ and consequently, their fixation in the revised Pay Scales w.e.f. 01.01.2016 was to be made at  Rs. 25,600/-. It is also alleged by the petitioners that in the Schedule appended with 2022, Revised Pay Rules, there was no mention of the category having pre-revised Pay Band of  Rs. 5910- 20200+2400/-G.P. and initial start of  Rs. 8240/-. Since, all these parameters were made relevant for fixation in the revised Pay Scales, the petitioners have suffered prejudice as their category had no place in the schedule appended to 2022 Rules. 9. The petitioners have further averred that the Drivers in Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation were also placed in the Pay Band of  Rs. 5910- 20200 +2400/-G.P. but their initial start was fixed at  Rs. 9880/-. In this way, petitioners have alleged further discrimination. 10. As per petitioners, they have also not been given the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS). 11. On 06.09.2022, the Pay Revision Rules, 2022, were further amended. Drivers, Forest Guards and Steno Typists were placed in the same Level i.e. Level-5. All the said categories were to get basic pay of  Rs. 21,300/- with increase after two years in the cases of Forest Guards and Steno Typists to  Rs. 30400/- and in the case of Drivers only to the tune of  Rs. 22600/-. At this stage, also the petitioners have alleged discrimination. 12. In the above noted factual background, the petitioners have prayed for the reliefs as noticed above. 13. The reply has been filed by the respondents and claim of the petitioners has been contested. 30400/- and in the case of Drivers only to the tune of  Rs. 22600/-. At this stage, also the petitioners have alleged discrimination. 12. In the above noted factual background, the petitioners have prayed for the reliefs as noticed above. 13. The reply has been filed by the respondents and claim of the petitioners has been contested. It has been stated that State of Himachal Pradesh takes into consideration the Punjab pattern of Pay Scales with suitable modifications, as the State Government has its own Staffing Pattern, Service Conditions, R&P Rules, Method of Recruitment, Educational Qualifications, Geographical & Traditional Conditions, Natural and Financial Resources etc. The State Government is stated to be not bound to follow the Punjab Pay Pattern. It has also been submitted that the pay scales notified by Punjab Government are taken only as a preliminary basis for revised pay scales of the State Government’s Employees. The State Government implements these Pay Scales in respect of its employees, after detailed examination at various levels by framing statutory Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India with the approval of competent authority. 14. As per respondents, it is not obligatory for all the states to have its own Pay Commission. As an example, it has been stated that 21 States do not have their own Pay Commission and 20 out of them follows the Central Pay Commission. Similarly, the State of Himachal Pradesh also follows the Punjab Pattern with modifications suitable to its requirements. 15. The respondents have also asserted its jurisdiction and power to legislate and to issue executive instructions on the State Public Services. 16. It has further been stated that since, the grant of Pay Scale is an executive function of State Government, this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere. 17. The respondents have further contended that there is no parity between the posts of Drivers, Clerks, Steno Typists and Forest Guards etc. Even, after two posts were carrying the same Pay Scale at particular time would not justify the grant of same Pay Scale after General Revision and for this purpose, wholesome parity between these posts needs to be determined. 18. Even, after two posts were carrying the same Pay Scale at particular time would not justify the grant of same Pay Scale after General Revision and for this purpose, wholesome parity between these posts needs to be determined. 18. As per respondents, the State Government of Himachal Pradesh follows only that pattern of Pay Scales, which the Government of Punjab implements in terms of the recommendations of its Pay Commission and it is not bound to follow the re-revision of Pay Scales. 19. On facts, it is not denied that Drivers were in receipt of more pay other than the Clerks and Patwaris prior to 01.01.2006. It has been sought to be explained that  Himachal  Pradesh  Civil  Services  (Revised  Pay) Rules, 2022, were made effective from 01.01.2016 and in these Rules, there were 31 Pay Matrix/Level and the pay fixation of the employees was to be done in the matrix and Levels specified therein corresponding to the existing Pay Band and Grade Pay of the posts, as per the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009. It is further mentioned that the re-revision done during 2012 has been ignored under the Revised Pay Rules, 2022. 20. It has not been denied that the petitioners are not been provided with the benefit of ACPS. The grant of Scale to the Drivers in HRTC, as alleged by the petitioners has also not been denied. As per respondents, the HRTC being a Public Sector Undertakings is not bound by the Rules framed by the State Government and hence, there cannot be any parity between the employees of the two. 21. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records carefully. 22. The facts more or less are not in dispute. It can be noticed that the Drivers were placed in the Pay Band of  Rs. 5910-20200/- +2400/-GP and  Rs. 9880/- as initial start in the Government of Punjab vide notification dated 15.12.2011. The State Government also issued the notification dated 27.09.2012, and thereby decided to place the Drivers after two years of service in the Pay Band of  Rs. 5910-20200+2400/-GP, however, the difference remained in the initial start in which the Drivers of Himachal Pradesh Government were placed. Their initial start was  Rs. 8240/-, even when the Grade Pay was  Rs. 2000/- and it was not changed even though, the Grade Pay was enhanced to  Rs. 5910-20200+2400/-GP, however, the difference remained in the initial start in which the Drivers of Himachal Pradesh Government were placed. Their initial start was  Rs. 8240/-, even when the Grade Pay was  Rs. 2000/- and it was not changed even though, the Grade Pay was enhanced to  Rs. 2400/-. 23. The inference is that the benefit of enhancement in Grade Pay from  Rs. 2000/- to  Rs. 2400/- granted to the category of Drivers in the State of Himachal Pradesh vide notification dated 27.09.2012 has not been added in the basic pay. 24. In  the  State  of  Punjab,  the  initial  start  of  Rs. 9880/- was given to the Drivers in the Pay Band of  Rs. 5910-20200+2400/-GP. There is no justifiable reason coming forth from the respondents for making such deviation. The Government of Punjab vide notification dated 27.05.2009, whereby the General Revision of Pay Scales was notified had annexed a schedule depicting General Conversion Table. The pre-revised Pay Scale of  Rs. 3330-6300/- was kept under Pay Band-II, Group-C and corresponding Pay Band allowed was  Rs. 5910- 20200+2000/-G.P. the initial pay was fixed at  Rs. 8420/-. In the pre-revised Pay Scale of  Rs. 4020-6200/-, the corresponding Pay Band was  Rs. 5910-20200/-, however, Grade Pay was  Rs. 2400/- and the initial pay was fixed at Rs. 9880/-. The said Rules were also accompanied by Fitment Tables. As per Fitment Table-II, where the basic pay was  Rs. 3330/-, corresponding Pay in the Pay Band was to be taken as  Rs. 6240/- and by adding Grade Pay of  Rs. 2000/-, the revised Basic Pay was to be taken as Rs. 8240/-. This was the pattern of all the Fitment Tables, which shows that the Basic Pay would include the pay in the Pay Band +G.P. By this analogy, on increase of GP of petitioners to  Rs. 2400/- from  Rs. 2000/-, the Basic Pay was bound to be revised. The Government of Himachal Pradesh while notifying the revised Pay Rules on 26.08.2009, had adopted the similar Conversion Table and Fitment Tables. The principle remained the same that revised Basic Pay would be the pay in the Pay Band+G.P. 25. Admittedly, when the 2012 Revised Pay Rules were notified by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the category of Drivers was held entitled to G.P of  Rs. 2400/- with Pay Band of  Rs. 5910-20200/- w.e.f. 01.10.2012. However, the initial start which was mentioned  as   Rs. Admittedly, when the 2012 Revised Pay Rules were notified by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the category of Drivers was held entitled to G.P of  Rs. 2400/- with Pay Band of  Rs. 5910-20200/- w.e.f. 01.10.2012. However, the initial start which was mentioned  as   Rs. 8240/-,  when  the  Grade  Pay  was  Rs. 2000/-, was not enhanced and this culminated in the petitioners being fixed at  Rs. 21300/- in next pay revision vide 2022 Rules, despite the fact, their GP was  Rs. 2400/-. They were put under the category of the persons with GP of  Rs. 2000/- and initial start of  Rs. 8240/-, which could not have been done because the GP of petitioners was Rs. 2400/-. This has created the anomaly and has rightly been projected by the petitioners. In result, the petitioners have definitely been put to monetary loss. The anomaly so created has continued and for that reason again in terms of notification dated 06.09.2022 though, the petitioners are in Level-5 with Forest Guards and Steno Typists, but they have been allowed the increase up to  Rs. 22600/- from  Rs. 21300/-, after two years of service, whereas in the cases of Forest Guards and Steno  Typists,  enhancement  is  from   Rs. 21300/-  to  Rs. 30400/- after two years of service. 26. During the course of hearing, when this court wanted to know about the material, if any, taken into consideration by the State Government to treat the category of petitioners differently, learned Deputy Advocate General had filed on record a copy of memorandum placed for consideration of Council of Ministers and by placing reliance on the Item No. 4(v) of said memorandum had urged that a conscious decision had been taken at appropriate level. Item No. 4(v) of memorandum reads as follows: “v) In the case of those categories where change in Pay Band or grade pay is also involved (on direct recruitment posts), the re- revision of the post concerned will be granted after completion of 2 years of regular service by an employee on that post and their pay structure at initial appointment shall remain same as on 01.01.2006. This is being done to avoid the implications in respect of Contract appointments as their emoluments are determined on the basis of minimum of the pay band plus grade pay. This principle has been approved by the Council of Ministers in the case of JBTs. This is being done to avoid the implications in respect of Contract appointments as their emoluments are determined on the basis of minimum of the pay band plus grade pay. This principle has been approved by the Council of Ministers in the case of JBTs. This is also necessary to keep providing employment in Government to large number of aspirants otherwise, future employment in Government will shrink considerably.” 27. The argument raised by learned Deputy Advocate General is not convincing as what has been reproduced above, pertains only to the incumbents who were appointed on Contract Basis. The petitioners necessarily do not fall under the said category. The petitioners who had regular service of more than 2 years prior to enforcement of 2012, Revised Pay Rules cannot be covered by aforesaid prescription. 28. Thus, apparently the action of respondents in denying the benefit to the petitioners has no basis. The entire edifice tried to be built by respondents by asserting its right to adopt the Punjab Pattern according to suitability falls to the ground. 29. The petitioners have based their case on the premise firstly that the category of clerks who were placed in lower pay scale than that of the Drivers prior to 1.1.2016 have been placed in much higher scale and secondly that there has been no justifiable reason with the respondents to deviate from the Punjab pattern of scale in the case of petitioners and thirdly that grave prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by the creation of the anomaly whereby the enhancement in grade pay of petitioners has not been added towards the basic pay. 30. Indisputably, the State Government is not bound to follow the Punjab pay pattern as held in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. P.D Attri & others, (1999) 3 SCC 217 , nonetheless, if it choses to do so, its action(s) have to confirm to the constitutional guarantees provided by Articles 14 and 16. 31. It is not the case of respondents that the Government of Himachal Pradesh had not followed the pay pattern adopted by the Government of Punjab on the recommendation of 5th and 6th Punjab Pay Commission or the re-revisions made in the interregnum. The fact remains that it has been done selectively. The question, thus, arises can such selection be made on mere whims/ caprices or have to be based on objective considerations? 32. The fact remains that it has been done selectively. The question, thus, arises can such selection be made on mere whims/ caprices or have to be based on objective considerations? 32. The contention of petitioners that they are entitled for parity in pay scales with other categories viz clerks and forest guards etc. cannot be approved for the simple reason that all such categories are governed by different sets of service rules as also their nature of duties is entirely different. However, other contention of the petitioners that they have been discriminated can be upheld. 33. The denial of addition of enhanced Grade Pay in the basic pay of petitioners has already been found to be unjustified. This aspect gains importance, when it ends up not only in creation of anomalous position whereby the petitioners do not find matching entry in the schedule appended to 2022 rules but also in putting them to recurring financial loss. 34. The cause sought to be shown by respondents in the form of memorandum prepared for consideration of Council of Ministers has already been found unconvincing and insufficient. No other material has been brought on record to justify the administrative decision, which is under challenge in the instant petition. In such circumstances an adverse inference can be drawn against the respondents to infer that no exercise based on objective considerations has been undertaken by the respondents, therefore, there is no hesitation to hold that the impugned administrative action is unreasonable, unjust and irrational to the category of petitioners who constitute a section of employees. 35. The scope of judicial review in the matters concerning grant of pay scales, its revision and related issues is well defined. The Court should interfere only when the administrative action is palpably unreasonable, unjustified and prejudicial to a section of employees. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and others Vs. G.S. Uppal and Others, (2008) 7 SCC 375 , it has been held as under:- “21. There is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle as settled in the above-cited decisions of this Court that fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is the function of the Executive and the scope of judicial review of administrative decision in this regard is very limited. There is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle as settled in the above-cited decisions of this Court that fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is the function of the Executive and the scope of judicial review of administrative decision in this regard is very limited. However, it is also equally well-settled that the courts should interfere  with  the  administrative  decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors.” 36. Similarly, in Shiba Kumar Dutta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, (1997) 3 SCC 545 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice adopted for invidious discrimination and denial of equal treatment by the employers to its employees. 37. In light of above discussion, the petition is allowed. The petitioners are held entitled to initial start of  Rs. 9880/- w.e.f. 01.10.2012 on issuance of notification dated 27.09.2012 when the petitioners came to be placed in the pay band of  Rs. 5910-20200/-+GP 2400. Consequently, the petitioners are also held entitled to fixation of the pay scale of the petitioners as per the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022 and scheduled attached thereto at  Rs. 25,600/-. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to grant to the petitioners initial start of  Rs. 9880/- w.e.f. 01.10.2012 when the petitioners came to be placed in the pay band of  Rs. 5910-20200/-+GP 2400 and also to fix their pay at Rs. 25,600/- from the date the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, became effective. It is clarified that the petitioners shall be entitled to arrears only for a period of three years prior to date of filing of petition. The respondents shall complete entire exercise in terms of this judgment within eight weeks from its pronouncement. The petition is accordingly disposed of so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.