2026:HHC:20351 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.3088 of 2019 Decided on: 25.05.2026 ____________________________________________________________ D.K. Sharma and others ...Petitioners Versus H.P. State Pollution Control Board and others ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes For the petitioners: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Virender Verma, Mr. Om Pal and Mr. Mohit Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.2 & 3. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following substantive reliefs: “(i) That the decision of respondent Board reflected in Annexure P-8 dated 28.4.2005 and 2.12.2009, Annexure P-13 may kindly be quashed, whereby the petitioners have been denied pay parity at par with their counterparts in the State 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:20351 government. (ii) That respondent Board may be directed to treat the petitioners at par with their counterparts i.e. Assistant Engineers and Executive Engineers in the State of HP in the matter of revision of pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and consequently they may be held entitled to revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1996 on completion of 4,9 and 14 years of service as Assistant Engineer and 14 years of service as Assistant Engineers/ Executive Engineers, as allowed to their counterparts in State of HP, with effect from 1.1.1996 with all consequential benefits;” 2. The facts, as emerge from the pleadings, are that respondent No.1-Board was constituted, vide Notification dated 21.12.1974 and from its inception, it has been following the pay scales as revised from time to time, applicable to the corresponding categories of officers/employees of State of H.P. Pursuant to the revision of pay scales in the State of Himachal Pradesh w.e.f. 01.01.1978, the pay scales of Assistant Environmental Engineers (for short ‘AEEs’) were revised to Rs.940-1850/-, at par with the category of Assistant Engineers in the State of Himachal Pradesh. 3. AEEs were granted the time scale of Rs.2200- 4000/-, w.e.f. 01.01.1986, as a result of revision of pay scale of the corresponding category of Assistant Engineers in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Later on, they were granted 3 2026:HHC:20351 higher scale of Rs.3000-4500/- on completion of 8 years of service and Rs. 3700-5300/- on completion of 18 years of service. Vide Notification dated 20.01.1998 (Annexure P-2), the pay scales of the employees of the State of Himachal Pradesh were revised w.e.f. 01.01.1996. However, the revision of pay scale was granted on scale basis and not on the basis of the category/nomenclature of the post. 4. The State of H.P. issued notification on 01.09.1998 (Annexure P-3), to notify the HP Civil Services (Revised Pay) 1st Amendment Rules, 1998, which were made effective from 01.01.1996. As per the amendment carried out in part-g of Rule 3 of 1998 Rules, the pay scales indicated in the notification were made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.1996 category wise. Under the professional categories, the category of Assistant Engineers was granted four tier pay scales i.e. the initial time scale and higher scales on completion of 4,9 and 14 years of service in the same post. The pay scale of Assistant Engineers, which was Rs.2200-4000/-(entry scale) was revised to Rs.7880- 13500/- (with a start of Rs.8000/-) (entry scale). The pay scale of Rs.3000-4500/- which was given after 8 years services, was revised to Rs.10025-15100/- (after 4 years 4 2026:HHC:20351 regular service in the entry scale). Pay scale of Rs.3700- 5300/- which was granted after 18 years of service, was revised to Rs.12000-15500/- (after 9 years regular service in the entry scale) and pay scale of Rs.14300-18150/- was granted after 14 years regular service in the entry scale. The category of Executive Engineers was allowed higher pay scale/time scale on completion of 14 years of regular service, including service rendered as Assistant Engineer. 5. It is also averred that as per instructions dated 06.10.1998 (Annexure P-4) issued by respondent No.3, it was decided that the grant of pay scale on the basis of the department notification dated 01.09.1998, which involves fixation/placement in higher pay scales may not be finalized and the cases already decided will also be subject to review in accordance with the guidelines/clarifications as may be issued. Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued instructions dated 23.06.2000 (Annexure P-5) to grant four tier pay scales and the category of the Assistant Engineer was also included and this benefit was called “Assured Career Progression Scheme” (in short ‘ACPS’) applicable w.e.f. 01.01.1996. It is further averred in the petition that respondent No.1-Board submitted a proposal to sub- 5 2026:HHC:20351 committee on 12.10.2000 (Annexure P-6) to release pay scales (category wise) as per notification dated 01.09.1997, however, while proposing the pay scale of AEE, the categories of Scientific Officer/Project Consultant were also clubbed with this category and pay scale of Rs.7880- 13500/- (with a start of Rs.8000/-) was proposed. There was no mention made qua admissibility of higher pay scales on completion of 4, 9 and 14 years of service. Similarly, for the Environmental Engineers, the entry scale of Rs.12000- 15500 was allowed w.e.f. 01.01.1996, corresponding the scale allowed to the category of Executive Engineers in the State. However, no mention was made regarding pay scale of Rs.14300-18150/- on completion of 14 years of service including the service rendered as Assistant Engineer. Thus, it is pleaded that there was deviation in the pay scale of categories of AEE and EE made by respondent No.1-Board as compared to the pay scales allowed on revision to the corresponding categories of Assistant Engineers and Executive Engineers in the State of H.P. 6. The sub-committee of Respondent No.1-Board on 28.04.2005 (Annexure P-8) rejected the proposal for grant of four tier/two tier pay scales to the categories of AEE and EE, 6 2026:HHC:20351 without assigning any reasons. The petitioners agitated the matter with respect to revision of pay scale as per Notification dated 01.09.1998 and consequently, a proposal was submitted in the 57th meeting held on 22.10.2007 for releasing four tier/two tier scales. The matter was thereafter referred to the sub-committee and when no decision was taken, the petitioners had filed the Original Application before the learned HP Administrative Tribunal. 7. The Original Application preferred by the petitioners was registered as OA No.45 of 2008, wherein they had sought direction to the respondents to revise the pay scales for the categories of AEEs and EEs as per notification dated 01.09.1998 as supplemented vide instructions dated 23.06.2000 in the matter of placement in four tire scales/time scale on completion of 14 years of service w.e.f. 01.01.1996. After filing reply to the Original Application, the same was disposed of on 13.03.2008 directing respondent No.1-Board to consider the same as representation and take a decision thereon within three months. After the decision passed by the learned Tribunal, the claim raised by the petitioners was again rejected on 04.04.2009, which was conveyed vide communication dated 7 2026:HHC:20351 02.12.2009 (Annexure P-13), wherein it was mentioned that the committee considered and rejected the matter for now and reiterated its earlier decision of 8th Meeting of Sub- Committee on service matters held on 28.04.2005. The petitioners against the order of rejecting their claim have approached this Court by way of present petition on the averments that respondent No.1-Board had not constituted any expert body for recommending revision of pay scales to its employees. Respondent No.1-Board has been following the pay scales revised from time to time by State of Himachal Pradesh, for its employees, since its inception. In the 14th Board Meeting held on 30.06.1984, respondent No.1-Board had decided to follow the government instructions regarding payment of revised scale, payment of ADA, CA and other instructions regarding fixation of pay/seniority etc., which was the specific reply given by respondent No.1-Board to the Original Application filed by the petitioners. It has further been averred that the posts of AEEs were created in the pay scale of Rs.400-1200/-, corresponding to the equivalent category of Assistant Engineers in State of H.P. and pursuant to revision of pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1978, the pay scale of AEEs was revised 8 2026:HHC:20351 by respondent No.1-Board to Rs.940-1850/-. Thereafter when the revision of pay scale took place w.e.f. 01.01.1986, similar pay scale as granted to the Assistant Engineers was given to the AEEs. Vide notification dated 20.01.1998, the revision was not allowed category wise, but was allowed on the basis of the existing scales. It has further been averred that the professional category of Assistant Engineers was granted revision of pay scales in the shape of four tier pay scales on completion of 4, 9 and 14 years of service in the same post and this was termed as ACPS. The posts of Executive Engineer were allowed the scale of Rs.14300- 18150/- after completion of 14 years of regular service as Assistant Engineer/Executive Engineer. However, the implementation of the said notification dated 01.09.1998 pertaining to four tier pay scale/professional categories remained partially stayed pursuant to letter dated 06.10.1998 (Annexure P-4), issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh, on the ground that guidelines for releasing such higher pay scales were to be finalized by the State of HP. Subsequently, the guidelines were issued by the State of HP vide letter dated 23.06.2005 (Annexure P-5) and thereafter there remained impediment in releasing the aforesaid pay 9 2026:HHC:20351 scales to the concerned employees. The deviation of granting pay scales earlier granted on the analogy of Assistant Enginner and Executive Engineer is arbitrary and untenable in law. It has further been averred that once the expert body for recommending revision of pay scales for its employees, had decided in principle to follow the pay pattern of State Government, it is not open to respondent No.1-Board to go half way and follow such pay scales to a section of its employees and then refuse to follow such pay scales to other employees of the Board. The rejection of the claim of the petitioners is arbitrary and without any reason. Not only this, even as per communication dated 02.12.2009 (Annexure P-13), it is clear that same has been rejected for now, by reiterating its earlier decision. It is not the case of respondent No.1-Board that the higher pay scale cannot be allowed to the category of petitioners on account of any financial problem, being faced by the Board. The balance sheet of respondent No.1-Board upto 31.03.2008, shows that an amount of Rs.3,02,88,668/- has been paid by respondent No.1-Board, on account of income tax. Further if the higher pay scale can be allowed to the categories of Clerks and Sr. Assistants etc., on completion of 8 years of 10 2026:HHC:20351 service on the basis of ACPS, there is no reason as to why the higher pay scales admissible to the petitioners should not be allowed on completion of 4, 9 and 14 years of service. The action of respondent No.1-Board to justify their impugned action on the ground that the petitioners have been given the benefit of one increment on completion of 8 years and 16 years of service, is not appropriate once they have been allowed higher pay scale at par with their counterparts in the State of H.P. corresponding to their posts of AEE & EE with Assistant Engineers and Executive Engineers in the State of H.P. from the very inception of creating respondent No.1-Board. 8. Respondent No.1-Board filed reply to the petition and admitted the averments to the extent that it had taken decision in its 14th Board meeting held on 30.06.1984, vide item No.14.10, that the Board would adopt the Government instructions regarding payment of revised scale, payment of ADA, CA and other instructions regarding fixation of pay/seniority etc. It has also been admitted that the AEEs of the Board were granted the revised pay scale of Rs.2200- 4000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and senior scale of Rs.3000-4500/- after completion of 8 years’ service. However, pay scale of 11 2026:HHC:20351 Rs.3700-5300/- was not granted, as no incumbent of this category at that stage had completed 18 years of service in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000/-. It has further been averred that as per notification dated 01.09.1998, the State Government has not made it obligatory upon the respondent No.1-Board to grant category wise time scale to category of engineers. At the time of granting pay scale, guidance was taken from pay scale of Central Pollution Control Board, Punjab Pollution Control Board, pay scales of various Departments of Government of HP such as HPPWD, HP. IPH and Prosecution Department. The AEEs and others were given higher pay scale of Rs.7880-13500/- instead of Rs.7220-11660/- and they have also been given the next higher pay scale of Rs.9200-13900/- after completion of 8 years of services. Respondent No.1-Board has not granted time scale or higher pay scale on completion of 4, 9 and 14 years of service to the AEEs and EEs and the petitioners cannot claim dual benefits after claiming monetary benefit under another set of scheme. Respondent No.1-Board had submitted the agenda item for release of time scale of all professional categories to the State Government vide letter No.27182 dated 28.03.2009 with a request for convening a 12 2026:HHC:20351 meeting of the 12th Sub-Committee on service matters and the committee considered and rejected the matter again after detailed discussion and the petitioners have been conveyed the decision. 9. Respondents No.2 and 3 despite opportunities granted to them, did not file reply and when the matter was listed on 16.09.2022, learned Additional Advocate General had submitted that no separate reply is sought to be filed on behalf of respondent No.3 and he is under instructions to state that reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1 be read as reply of respondent No.3, also. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 11. Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned senior counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Virender Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that once respondent No.1-Board in its 14th Board meeting held on 30.06.1984 had taken a conscious decision that it will follow the Government instructions regarding payment of revised scale, payment of ADA, CA and other instructions regarding fixation of pay/seniority etc., there is no justification to not grant the same benefit as given to the counterparts of the 13 2026:HHC:20351 petitioners, who are working on the same posts in the State Government. He further argued that the decision in not granting the benefit of 4, 9 and 14 years service as granted to the counterparts of the petitioners working on the same posts in the State of H.P., is patently wrong and illegal in view of the fact that the State Government from the inception of constitution of Respondent No.1-Board had been granting the same pay scales to its employees w.e.f. 01.01.1978, which fact has not been disputed by the respondent No.1-Board. 12. Learned senior counsel further argued that while rejecting the claim of the petitioners, no reasons have been assigned. Once respondent No.1-Board was granting the same pay scale to the petitioners from the very inception as granted in the State of H.P., to the corresponding categories there is no justification to deviate from the said course while denying the benefit to the petitioners. 13. Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Surya Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent No.1-Board has supported the decisions and argued that it is not for the Court to see that what scale should be given to its employees, rather it is the job of the 14 2026:HHC:20351 expert bodies and further it is for the employer to see that which pay scales are to be given to its employees. He argued that even if in the past, the same scales were being given to the employees, it is not obligatory for the employer to grant the revised pay scale and other benefits as earlier granted at par with the categories in the State of H.P. Respondent No.1-Board has taken conscious decision considering all factors and thus no interference is called for. 14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel representing the parties at the bar. It is not in dispute that the petitioners, who were/are working with respondent No.1- Board as AEE and EE were getting the same pay scale as granted to the categories of Assistant Engineers and Executive Engineers respectively, working with the State Government from the very inception of Respondent No.1- Board in the year 1974 till the revision of pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The anomaly had occurred only after the issuance of notification dated 01.09.1998, when the State Government had given the benefit of 4, 9 and 14 benefits under ACPS to its employees and the said benefit has not been extended to the categories of the petitioners. 15 2026:HHC:20351 Respondent No.1-Board had given the same scale to the petitioners at the entry level of Rs.2200-4000/-, which was revised to Rs.7880-13500/- with a start of Rs.8000/- entry scale, but the other benefits after completion of 4 years, 9 years and 14 years regular service in the entry scale, have been denied to the category of AEEs. The EEs working in Respondent No.1-Board have been granted the entry scale of Rs.12000-15500/-, but they have been denied higher pay scale of Rs.14300-18150/- on completion of 14 years service as granted to the Executive Engineers in the State of H.P. 15. It is settled law that it is not within the realm of the Court to equate the pay scales granted to the employees by its employer in one department with another department. However, when there is unreasonableness on the part of the employer, the Court can definitely interfere in the matter and direct the employer to grant the pay scale as given to the other employees in the State. If the impugned orders, which have been passed by the respondents are perused, no reasons have been assigned while rejecting the claim of the petitioners. Once the petitioners were being granted the same pay scales after its revision and other benefits from time to time, the least 16 2026:HHC:20351 which was expected of the employer was to give some reasons that why the same pay scales were not being given to its employees and the petitioners, when they were getting the same pay scales as given to their counterparts in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a similar set of facts has held that though 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 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. It has further been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that to maintain parity and remove anomaly, the same pay scales as were granted earlier should be automatically extended to the corresponding categories. In this regard, a reference is made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and others vs. G.S. Uppal and others, (2008) 7 SCC 375. The relevant paras 17 2026:HHC:20351 of the judgment read as under:- “21. There is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle as settled in the abovecited decisions of this Court that fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is the function of the executive and the scope of judicial review of administrative decision in this regard is very limited. However, it is also equally 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. (See K.T. Veerappa v. State of Karnataka.) 25. The employees of the Corporation, since its inception in 1970, had been getting the same pay scales as that of the employees of the Haryana Government and the Board of Directors having already equated the pay scales of the Engineers of the Corporation commensurate to the pay scales of the government employees, but the State Government has not concurred with the decision of the Board of Directors. 31. A careful examination shows that the issue was not really about grant of pay scales to Corporation Engineers on a par with PWD Engineers. When the pay revision took place, the revised pay scales that were given to the Engineers of the State Government were also given to Engineers of the Corporation with effect from 1-1-1986 thereby maintaining the parity. What was not extended to the Corporation employees, which is the subject-matter of the grievance, is the further revision by way of "removal of anomaly in pay scales" given to AEE/AE/SDO/SDE of the State Government with effect from 1-5-1989 vide Circular dated 2-6-1989 of the Finance Commissioner. The real question would be whether what is given by way of anomaly removal in the case of Engineers of the State Government, should automatically be extended to the corresponding categories of Engineers of the Corporation. 32. When, after a pay revision, an anomaly is found in the pay scale given to a class of government servants and such anomaly is rectified, it is not a new pay revision but a correction of the original pay revision, or an amendment to the pay scale that has already been granted. Therefore, where the pay revision extended to the government servants has already been extended to the employees of 18 2026:HHC:20351 the Corporation also, it follows that any correction of anomaly in the revised pay scale given to the government servants should also be made in the case of those who were earlier given parity by extending the pay scale which is the subject-matter of the correction. It should be borne in mind that the question whether Corporation Engineers were on a par with PWD Engineers and should be given parity in pay scales was already decided when the pay scale revision granted to Government (PWD) Engineers was extended to the Corporation Engineers also with effect from 1-1-1986. That question did not again arise when the anomaly in the pay revision was rectified with reference to the Government Engineers. When the anomaly in the pay scale of Government Engineers was rectified, the rectification should apply to Corporation Engineers also to maintain the parity. 33. The plea of the appellants that the Corporation is running under losses and it cannot meet the financial burden on account of revision of scales of pay has been rejected by the High Court and, in our view, rightly so. Whatever may be the factual position, there appears to be no basis for the action of the appellants in denying the claim of revision of pay scales to the respondents. If the Government feels that the Corporation is running into losses, measures of economy, avoidance of frequent writing off of dues, reduction of posts or repatriating deputationists may provide the possible solution to the problem. Be that as it may, such a contention may not be available to the appellants in the light of the principle enunciated by this Court in M.M.R. Khan v. Union of India and Indian Overseas Bank v. Staff Canteen Workers' Union. However, so long as the posts do exist and are manned, there appears to be no justification for granting the respondents a scale of pay lower than that sanctioned for those employees who are brought on deputation. In fact, the sequence of events discussed above clearly shows that the employees of the Corporation have been treated on a par with those in Government at the time of revision of scales of pay on every occasion. 34. It is an admitted position that the scales of pay were initially revised w.e.f. 1-4-1979 and thereafter on 1-1- 1986. On both these occasions, the pay scales of the employees of the Corporation were treated and equated on a par with those in Government. It is thus an established fact that both were similarly situated. 19 2026:HHC:20351 Thereafter, nothing appears to have happened which may justify the differential treatment. Thus, the Corporation cannot put forth financial loss as a ground only with regard to a limited category of employees. It cannot be said that the Corporation is financially sound insofar as granting of revised pay scales to other employees is concerned, but finds financial constraints only when it comes to dealing with the respondents who judgment of the Division Bench upholding the judgment and order of the are similarly placed in the same category. Having regard to the well-reasoned warrants no interference inasmuch as no illegality, infirmity or error of learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the impugned judgment jurisdiction could be shown before us.” 16. A bare perusal of the judgment referred above, clearly reflects that when the administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity are unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees, the Court can interfere. It has also been held that when the pay revision extended to the Government servants as also been extended to the employees of the Corporation, it follows that any correction of anomaly in the revised pay scale given to the Government servants should also be made in the case of those who were earlier given parity while extending the pay scale, which is the subject matter of the grievance. 17. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the counterparts of the petitioners in the State Government 20 2026:HHC:20351 were paid the benefit of 4, 9 and 14 years service. Once the petitioners were also being given the same pay scales as granted to Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer from the inception by respondent No.1-Board, there is no justification to deny the same to them. The petitioners have specifically mentioned in the petition that as per the balance sheet of the respondent No.1-Board upto 31.03.2008, an amount of Rs.3,02,88,668/- has been paid by respondent No.1-Board on account of income tax. Once respondent No.1-Board is not in a financial straits, denial of the benefit to the petitioners is without any logic and irrational. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the aforementioned judgment that even the financial straits cannot be a ground to deny the benefit to its employees. However, in the present case as candidly admitted by the respondents in their reply that they are not in financial straits, the relief claimed by the petitioners could not have been denied to them especially when no reasons have been assigned while rejecting their claim. 18. The plea taken by respondent No.1-Board that the petitioners have been granted other benefits cannot be a ground to deny the other benefits, which have been given 21 2026:HHC:20351 by the State Government to their employees. The petitioners are claiming parity of the pay scale and other benefits as granted to their counterparts in the State of H.P. At the most, if the petitioners have been granted/extended some benefits, respondent No.1-Board can adjust the said benefits, while granting the same benefits as granted to their counterparts in the State of Himachal Pradesh. By simply stating that the petitioners have been granted some benefits cannot justify their action and deny the benefit to the petitioners, who are otherwise entitled to the same benefit as per the notification dated 01.09.1998, whereby the benefits have been granted to the employees working in the State of HP and as such, the relief claimed by the petitioners in the present proceedings deserves to be allowed to them. 19. Resultantly, I find merit in the petition and the impugned orders dated 28.04.2005 (Annexure P-8) and 02.12.2009 (Annexure P-13), are quashed and set aside, with a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioners at par with their counterparts i.e. Assistant Engineers and Executive Engineers in the State of Himachal Pradesh in the matter of revision of pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and they 22 2026:HHC:20351 are held entitled to revised pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996 on completion of 4, 9 and 14 years of service including service as Assistant Engineer with all consequential benefits. The respondents are directed to pay the arrears to the petitioners within three months from today and in case the arrears are not paid within three months, respondents shall pay interest @6% per annum from today till its actual payment. However, there shall be not orders as to cost. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 25 th M ay, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge