2026:HHC:21061 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No.5489 of 2019 Reserved on: 20.05.2026 Decided on: 02.06.2026 Uploaded on: 02.06.2026 _______________________________________________________ Usha Devi and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners: Mr. Chandranarayana Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent Nos.1 to 3-State. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 to 19. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge The petitioners by way of present petition have prayed for the following substantive reliefs: “i) That the letters/orders dated 12.9.2018, 9.6.2018 and 1.10.2018 Annexure A-13 (Colly) be quashed and set aside for all intents and purposes. ii) That issue appropriate directions to the respondents/Competent Authorities to fix the pay scales for the post of Civil Nazir in respondent No.3 similar to the pay scales of Civil Nazir as has been fixed in the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts/Judiciary. iii) Issue appropriate directions to the respondents to carry necessary amendment in the R & P Rules, provide promotion 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 avenues to the applicants/Civil Nazir’s as are available to their counterparts in the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts/Judiciary with retrospective effect with all consequential benefits within a time bound manner. iv) That the respondents may be directed to accordingly work out the arrears of pay in favour of the applicants and pay the same to the applicants alongwith 9% p.a. v) That the pay of the applicants accordingly be fixed with all consequential benefits.” 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioners were appointed to the post of Civil Nazir, on contract basis with respondent No.3-Commission. Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 were appointed as Civil Nazir, on contract basis, vide office order(s) dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure A-1), 03.07.2009 (Annexures A-2 to A-4) and 30.09.2010 (Annexure A-6), respectively. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 were appointed on fixed contractual amount of Rs.7500/- per month and petitioner No.5 was appointed on consolidated fixed contractual amount @Rs.14,100/- per month, which was in the pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+3800 Grade Pay. 3. Later on, services of the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 were regularized vide office order dated 27.05.2015 (Annexure A-5). As per office order dated 27.04.2016 (Annexure A-7), the services of petitioner No.5 were regularized after completion of 5 years of continuous service as on 31.03.2016 in the pay scale of 3 Rs.10300-34800+3200/- Grade Pay, in Pay Band-3 with initial start of Rs.13,500/- per month (Rs.10300+3200 Grade Pay) plus allowances at the rates admissible subject to the condition laid down in the rules and orders governing the grant of such allowances in force from time to time. 4. At the time of offering appointment to petitioner No.5 as Civil Nazir, on contract basis, vide office order dated 30.09.2010 (Annexure A-6), the Rules called as the “Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Civil Nazir, Class-III (Non-Gazetted), Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2010” (hereinafter to be referred as “R & P Rules”) notified on 14.05.2010 for the post of Civil Nazir, were in vogue. As per these Rules, the pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+3800 Grade Pay was fixed for the post of Civil Nazir. 5. After issuance of the aforesaid Notification dated 14.05.2010, another Notification was issued on 09.12.2011 (Annexure R-3) amending the said Notification. By way of the amendment, the existing provision against Column No.4 relating to the pay scale for the post of Civil Nazir, which had earlier been prescribed as Rs.10300-34800+3800 Grade Pay was substituted with Rs.10300-34800+3200 Grade Pay. Furthermore, the 4 emoluments payable to contractual employees were prescribed in accordance with the details provided in Column 15A. Thereafter, Notification dated 27.09.2012 (Annexure A-9) was also issued by the State Government when the pay band and Grade Pay of various categories of posts were increased after completion of 2 years’ service. 6. Thereafter this Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts Employees (Pay Allowances and other condition of Service) Act, 2005 and Section 18 of the HP Court’s Act, 1976 and all other powers enabling thereto, with the prior approval of H.E. the Governor of Himachal Pradesh, issued Notification on 12.03.2013 to make the Rules called as the “Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts’ Staff (Recruitment, Promotion and conditions of Service) Rules, 2012” and also revised the Grade Pay. The Class III (Non-Gazetted) employees i.e. Senior Assistants, who were in the Pay Scale of Rs.10300-34800+3800 Grade Pay were granted the Grade Pay of Rs.4400/- w.e.f. 01.10.2012. 7. The case of the petitioners in the present petition is that since the method of recruitment, nature and duties, 5 responsibilities and power exercised, other charge held, qualification, functions performed by them with respondent No.3- Commission are similar to their counterparts in the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts, they are also entitled to the pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+3800 Grade Pay and Rs.4400/- Grade Pay w.e.f. 01.10.2012. 8. The petitioners after putting 10 years’ service are getting the same pay scale and emoluments i.e. Rs.10300- 34800+3200 Grade Pay, which is equivalent to the pay scale of Clerk in respondent No.3-Commission, who are getting after completing 2 years of their regular service. The petitioners have also pleaded that there are no promotional avenues to them, however, the Clerks have promotional avenues to the posts of Junior Assistant and then to Senior Assistant and thereafter they are eligible to Class-II post. Since, the petitioners have inadequate promotional avenues and similar pay scales as are being given to their counterparts in other Courts are missing in their case, they are suffering and there is grave disparity with respect to the avenue of promotion and pay scale. 9. The petitioners had submitted representations regarding inequality in the pay scales of two similarly situated 6 posts of Civil Nazir in respondent No.3-Commission and in the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts and Labour Court as well as lack of availability of promotional avenues. However, the said representations made by them were rejected by letters dated 12.09.2018, 09.06.2018 and 01.10.2018, which is contrary to law. Since, the petitioners are being paid different pay scales for the post of Civil Nazir as compared to Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts, the said action is pleaded to be arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also pleaded that there are no promotional avenues to the post of Civil Nazir. The rejection of their claim by a non-speaking order is also violative of principles of natural justice as well as without much application of mind. 10. It has been averred that despite the method of recruitment, their nature and duties, responsibilities and power exercised, other charge held, qualifications, functions and duties performed by them as Civil Nazir with respondent No.3- Commission being very similar to the functions/duties performed by their counterparts in the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts, thus there is no nexus to pay them less pay scale as 7 compared to their counterparts. 11. It has further been averred that the petitioners are entitled for the equal pay/equal wages for the work they are performing commensurate with their counterparts in the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts/Judiciary. Fixing of different pay scales and more particularly lowering the pay scales is not only discriminatory, but contrary to law and hence they are entitled to equal pay scale. It has also been averred in the petition that the learned HP Administrative Tribunal in similar set of facts had held that the denial of pay scale to the Assistant Registrar at par with the coordinate post of Assistant Registrar in this Court amounts to discrimination and impermissible under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and thus held them entitled for the same pay scale as given by this Court. 12. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 had filed reply to the petition and in the preliminary submissions averred that the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for. The discrimination complained of must be within the same establishment owned by the same management. A comparison cannot be made with counterparts in other establishments with different managements, or even in establishments in different 8 geographical locations though owned by the same master, unless, it is shown that there is a discrimination amongst the same set of employees by the same master in the same establishment, the principle of “equal pay for equal work” cannot be imposed. It has further been averred that similarity in the designation or quantum of work are not determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales and that before entertaining and accepting the claim based on the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, the factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment, the qualifications, the nature of work, the value judgment, responsibilities, reliability, experience, confidentiality, functional need etc. must be considered. There may be differences in educational or technical qualifications, which may have a bearing on the skills, which the holders bring to their job although the designation of the job may be the same. 13. On merits, it has been averred that 5 posts of Civil Nazir were created by the State Government, vide letter dated 26.02.2007 i.e. 1 post for the State Consumer Commission and 4 posts for the District Consumer Fora (Now District Consumer Commissions). Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 were appointed against the said posts and given fixed contractual amount of Rs.7500/- per 9 month. Thereafter, the State Government had notified R & P Rules for the post of Civil Nazir, Class III, on 14.05.2010 and the post of Civil Nazir was granted pay scale of Rs.10300- 34800+3800 Grade Pay and fixed the consolidated contractual amount to be paid to the post of Civil Nazir on contractual basis at Rs.14,100/-. However, thereafter the R&P Rules were amended and another Notification was issued on 09.12.2011. After coming into force the amendment in R & P Rules for the post of Civil Nazir with regard to pay scale, the pay of petitioner No.5 was re-fixed in the pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+3200 Grade Pay which the other incumbents working on the posts of Civil Nazir in District Consumer Commission were already getting. At the time of reducing of Grade Pay of petitioner No.5, he did not agitate the same and accepted the Grade Pay and as such at this belated stage, he is estopped from raising the plea that his Grade Pay has been reduced to Rs.3200/- from Rs.3800/-. 14. While replying to the grounds, it was not disputed that there exists no promotional avenues to the post of Civil Nazir. It was submitted that in the Judiciary, the post of Civil Nazir was advertised and the Clerk/Junior Assistant having 10 years of regular service on seniority basis were promoted to the 10 post of Civil Nazir and the channel prescribed for promotion to the higher post in the Judiciary include the post of Clerk/Junior Assistant. 15. So far as the plea raised in the grounds that the method of recruitment, their nature and duties, responsibilities and power exercised, other charge held, qualifications, functions and duties performed by the petitioners as Civil Nazir with respondent No.3-Commission are very similar to the functions/duties performed by their counterparts in the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts, is concerned, it was averred that the same are wrong, incorrect and as such emphatically denied. It has been averred that the pay scale of H.P. Subordinate Courts has not been made applicable to respondent No.3-Commission. 16. All the petitioners have been given the benefits, which their counterparts in the State Government are getting. Further, the Civil Nazirs in respondent No.3-Commission are entitled to the Assured Carrier Progression Scheme (ACPS) i.e. one additional increment on the existing pay with Grade Pay of the next higher pay scale after four years, which the petitioners have duly been given, but the Clerks are not entitled to the same. It has been averred that the duties and responsibilities 11 even if are same, parity would not be permissible as against the superior post such as promotional post. 17. Respondent Nos.4 to 19 had filed an application bearing CMP-T No.537 of 2022, seeking their impleadment in the writ petition, who were working in various capacities i.e. Junior Assistants, Senior Assistants and Readers and the same was allowed on 06.01.2026 and they were impleaded as party respondent Nos.4 to 19 in the petition. Though, the said respondents have been impleaded as party respondents, but they did not file reply to the petition. 18. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 19. It is not in dispute that when petitioner Nos.1 to 4 were appointed as Civil Nazir on contract basis, they were appointed on fixed contractual amount of Rs.7500/- per month. It is only petitioner No.5, who was appointed, vide office order dated 30.09.2010 (Annexure A-6), was paid consolidated amount of Rs.14,100/- per month (which shall be equal to minimum of the pay band plus Grade Pay). This pay scale was, as per Notification dated 14.05.2010, vide which the pay scale of Civil Nazir was determined as Rs.10300-34800+3800 Grade Pay. 12 Petitioner No.5 was given Rs.14,100/- i.e.(Rs.10300-34800+3800 Grade Pay=Rs.14,100/-). Later on, the said Notification was modified vide Notification dated 09.12.2011 (Annexure R-3), when the pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+3800 Grade Pay was substituted by Rs.10300-34800+3200 Grade Pay. 20. During the pendency of the petition, the respondents-State has issued the Notification, whereby the promotional avenues have been provided to the category of Civil Nazir and thus the claim raised by the petitioners to provide them the promotional avenues does not survive and thus the relief claimed in Clause (iii) of para 7 in the petition does not survive. 21. The petitioners have based their claim to grant them the same pay scale as granted to their counterparts in the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Judiciary where the posts of Civil Nazir are also existing. It is not in dispute that qualification to the post of Civil Nazir as prescribed by the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Judiciary and that of respondent No.3-Commission are same. Further, the nature and duties, responsibilities and power exercised, other charge held, functions and duties performed by the petitioners are also akin to that of Civil Nazirs, who are performing their duties in the Subordinate Judiciary. 13 22. It is by now settled in catena of judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the fixation of pay, parity and assigning the duties is the function of the executive and also depends upon the financial capacity of the Government. The Courts should not ordinarily interfere with administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity, however, when a decision is unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors, the Court should interfere with such administrative decision pertaining to pay fixation. 23. In the present case, as per the Notification dated 14.05.2010 (Annexure A-8), the pay scale of the post of Civil Nazir, which was initially fixed at Rs.10300-34800+3800 Grade Pay, was subsequently substituted vide Notification dated 09.12.2011 (Annexure R-3), when the Grade Pay was brought to Rs.3200 instead of Rs.3800, earlier granted. 24. While filing reply to the petition, the respondents have not stated any reason that why the said pay scale, which was earlier fixed as Rs.10300-34800+3800 Grade Pay has been reduced to Rs.10300-34800+3200 Grade Pay. No doubt, as observed above, it is not within the domain of the Courts to fix 14 the pay scale and it is the job of the expert bodies, but at the same time, once the petitioners are performing the same nature of duties, responsibilities, power exercised, other charge held, functions and their qualifications are same and akin to that of Civil Nazirs, who are performing the same duties and functions in the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Judiciary, which facts have not been specifically denied by the respondents while filing the reply to the petition, there is no reason to grant them less pay scale as given to the Civil Nazirs in the Subordinate Judiciary. The respondents-State had earlier issued the Notification on 14.05.2010 when the category of Civil Nazirs in respondent No.3- Commission was granted pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+3800 Grade Pay and there is no valid reason explained to amend the pay scale and Grade Pay. Once the petitioners are performing the same duties, they are entitled to the same pay scales on the principle of “equal pay for equal work” as granted to the Civil Nazirs in the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Judiciary. 25. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Randhir Singh vs. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618, has held that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is not a mere doctrine slogan, but a constitutional goal, capable of being 15 attained through constitutional remedies, and this principle has to be read with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This decision was later on affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara and others vs. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305. 26. The learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petition in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited and another vs. Balbir Kumar Walia and others, (2021) 8 SCC 784 and Union of India vs. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association and another, (2023) 19 SCC 482, wherein, it has been held that the power of judicial review of the Courts in the matter of classification of posts and pay fixation is a complex matter, which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had occasioned while fixing the pay scale for a given post and the interference of the Court was absolutely necessary to undo the injustice. 27. No doubt, it is not within the realm of the Courts to 16 fix the pay scale, make promotion avenues to the post and it is the job of the executive and the expert bodies, but in the present case, since the respondents-State had earlier issued the Notification on 04.05.2010, thereby granting the Grade Pay of Rs.3800/- to the category of the Civil Nazir, no reason has been assigned when the same has been reduced to Rs.3200/-. Furthermore, as stated above, once the qualification, nature of duties, functions, responsibility, charge held etc. of the petitioners on the posts of Civil Nazir are same as that of the Civil Nazirs in the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Judiciary, there is no justification to grant them less pay. 28. Learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent Nos.1 to 3-State as well as learned Senior Counsel for the private respondent Nos.4 to 19 vehemently argued that the fixation of pay and parity and assigning the duties is the function of the executive and depends upon the financial capacity. They placed reliance upon the judgment in K.T. Veerappa and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, (2006) 9 SCC 406. As already held above, no doubt the scope of this Court in the matter of fixation of pay and parity is very limited, but even as per the judgments referred above, if it is found that the administrative 17 decision while fixing the pay is unreasonable, unjust, and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors, the Courts can interefere. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “13. He next contended that fixation of pay and parity in duties is the function of the executive and financial capacity of the Government and the priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the Government are also relevant factors. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. And Union of India v. S.B. Vohra. There is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle as settled in State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. 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 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.” 29. A perusal of the above judgment clearly reveals that the Court can interfere if the administrative decision is unreasonable. In the present case, no reason has been assigned while issuing the subsequent Notification on 09.12.2011 when the earlier Grade Pay has been reduced. No doubt, it was not mandatory to be mentioned in the Notification issued by the 18 respondents-State, the reason for reducing pay scale, but when the reply was filed, the respondents-State were duty bound to support the same by some convincing material on record. However, nothing has been placed on record or averred in the reply to the writ petition that why the pay scale has been changed, thereby reducing the Grade Pay. Since the petitioners are also possessing the same qualification, discharging the same functions etc. as stated above, there is no justification to pay them less pay as granted to their counterparts in the Himachal Pradesh Subordinated Judiciary. 30. The Hon’ble Supreme Court again in Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and others vs. G.S. Uppal and others (along with connected matters), (2008) 7 SCC 375, reiterated that the judicial review in the matters of fixation of pay and determination of parity in duty is limited, but observed that the Courts would be justified in interfering with the pay fixation, if it finds a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced hereunder: “21. There is no dispute nor can there be any to the 19 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. [see K.T. Veerappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 406].” 22. Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Raj Kumar Gupta and Shri A.N.Bardiyar appearing for respondents in C.A. Nos. 9244/03 and 9248/03; Mr. Rishi Malhotra, Advocate appearing for respondents in C.A. 9239/2003, in support of the judgment of the Division Bench, contended that no exceptions can be taken to the well- reasoned judgment recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court. They submitted that the Division Bench has analysed in great detail the factual situation and legal proposition covering the field of controversy, therefore, there is apparently no infirmity or perversity in the judgment impugned in these appeals inviting interference by this Court. 23. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, we have scrutinized the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in the backdrop of the factual situation of the case as well as in the light of the principle enunciated in the above-cited decisions. 24. It is well-settled that the State can make reasonable classification if it has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It is admitted position in the present case that posts of SDOs/SDEs/AEs can be filled up by the Corporation by any one of the three known methods, namely, direct recruitment, on promotion or by transfer/deputation. Once a person is appointed to a post in a particular cadre, the source of his recruitment or the method of his appointment becomes irrelevant. The Corporation has framed its Service Bye-Laws and by virtue 20 of Rule 5.1 of Part-V of the Service Bye-Laws, each post in the Corporation will carry a time scale of pay; the present pay scale being indicated in Appendix-II and further that the pay scale is subject to revision by the Board, which will, however, generally follow the pattern adopted by the Government of Haryana from time to time. 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. 26. By virtue of Clause 81(v) of the Memorandum of Association of the Corporation, the Directors of the Corporation in their discretion have powers to appoint, remove or suspend such Managers, Secretaries, Officers, Clerks, Agents and Servants of permanent, temporary or special services, as they may from time to time think fit, and to determine their powers and duties and fix their salaries or emoluments and to require security of such amount as they think fit in such instances. The power to fix the salaries or emoluments of the employees of the Corporation, thus, specifically rests with the Directors of the Corporation and by virtue of Rule 5.1 of Part-V of the Service Bye-Laws, as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, the Corporation had favourably considered the claim of the respondents by recommending the same scales for them, as were being given to their counterparts in the service of the Government Departments. 27. The proposal of the Board of Directors of the Corporation for revision of pay scales to its employees came up before the Standing Committee in its meeting held on 28.05.1992 and the Standing Committee approved the pay scales in a selective manner. The revision in pay scales of the Superintending Engineers, Accounts Officers, Circle Head Draftsmen, Divisional Head Draftsmen, etc. were approved, whereas the revision of pay scales of the respondents, who are AEs/SDOs/SDEs, was postponed and it was decided that the matter would be examined separately by the Finance Department. 21 28. The State of Haryana in its written statement filed before the High Court admitted that although the technical qualifications of incumbents on the posts of AEs/SDOs/SDEs in various Government Departments, Boards and Corporations are identical, yet the nature of duties and responsibilities, quantum of workload and level of technical expertise involved do vary from organization to organization depending upon the nature of activities undertaken by the respective organizations. It is further contended that the salary and allowances of the deputationists of the Corporation are governed by the terms and conditions of their deputation as decided by the Government from time to time. Therefore, the respondents cannot be treated and equated at par with the similar categories of employees of the State Government. 29. The learned Single Judge of the High Court as also the learned Judges of the Division Bench have considered the controversy in detail in their judgments holding the respondents entitled for the revision of pay scales on a par with their counter-parts working in the State of Haryana. 30. It is not in dispute that a deputationist holds the post in a particular cadre office for the duration he remains on deputation and is a part of that cadre. No material has been placed on record by the appellants to show that the deputationists are appointed against only certain particular posts or that they cannot be posted or transferred to the posts held by the respondents. In fact, it is an admitted position that the posts are mutually inter-changeable. In this situation, it is reasonable to infer that a deputationist performs the same duties as those performed by other persons working in the cadre. It is also an admitted position that the qualifications laid down for recruitment in the Corporation are identical to those prescribed in the Departments of the Government. It is further clear that the respondents have continued to work in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. As against this, their counter-parts in the Government and also the persons, who are posted in the Corporation by way of deputation, would get the scale of Rs.3000-4500 on completion of five years of service and are placed in the scale of Rs.4100-5300 (to the extent of 20% of the posts) on completion of 12 years of service. The respondents 22 were obviously placed at a disadvantageous position. The decision of the Government in rejecting the proposal of the Board of Directors suffers from the vice of invidious discrimination and cannot be sustained because the very same decision of the Board with regard to all other employees has since been accepted and approved by the State Government. On the scrutiny of the material on record, it is clear that the appellants did not produce any evidence on record to establish that the working conditions, responsibilities and nature of duties, etc. of the respondents are different from their counter-parts working in the same categories in the State Government, Boards and other Corporations, etc. and also the persons who are working with the Corporation on deputation. 31. A careful examination shows that the issue was not really about grant of pay scales to Corporation Engineers on par with PWD Engineers. When the pay revision took place, the revised pay scales that were given to Engineers of the State Government were also given to the 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 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 23 in mind that the question whether Corporation engineers were on 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 [1990 Supp. SCC 191] and Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers' Union [(2000) 4 SCC 245]. 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 at par with those in Government at the time of revision of scales of pay on every occasion.” 31. The Hon’ble Supreme Court again in Union of India vs. Dineshan K.K., (2008) 1 SCC 586, held that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” has assumed the status of a 24 fundamental right. 32. No doubt, it is the task of expert bodies like the Pay Commission to determine the pay structure, yet judicial review is not altogether excluded. It has been held that in cases where there is no dispute with regard to the qualifications, duties and responsibilities of persons holding identical posts or ranks, but they are treated differently, merely because they belong to different departments, or where the basis of qualification for a post is ex facie irrational, the Courts can interfere. 33. Again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Power Corporation Limited vs. Rajesh Kumar Jindal and others, (2019) 3 SCC 547, held that it is the duty of the employee seeking parity of pay under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India to prove and establish that he has been discriminated against, as the question of parity has to be decided after consideration of various factors. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced hereunder: 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 Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank v. D.B. Sharma and Others (2001) 1 SCC 353, this Court held as under:- (SCC 25 p.363, Para 7). 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. In S.C. Chandra and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others (2007) 8 SCC 279, this Court held as under:- 33. It may be mentioned that granting pay scales is a purely executive function and hence the court should not interfere with the same. It may have a cascading effect creating all kinds of problems for the Government and authorities. Hence, the court should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in such executive function vide Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 408. ………. 35. In our opinion fixing pay scales by courts by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work upsets the high constitutional principle of separation of powers between the three organs of the State. Realising this, this Court has in recent years avoided applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, unless there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups (and there too the matter should be sent for examination by an Expert Committee appointed by the Government instead of the court itself granting higher pay). 36. It is well settled by the Supreme Court that only 26 because the nature of work is the same, irrespective of educational qualification, mode of appointment, experience and other relevant factors, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply vide Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy and Others (2004) 1 SCC 347.” The same view was reiterated in Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh and Others v. Manju Mathur and Another (2011) 2 SCC 452; State of Haryana and Others v. Charanjit Singh and Others (2006) 9 SCC 321 and in Hukum Chand Gupta v. Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Others (2012) 12 SCC 666. 16. Observing that granting parity in pay scales depends upon the comparative evaluation of job and equation of posts, in Steel Authority of India Limited and Others v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya (2011) 11 SCC 122, this Court held as under:- “30. ……….. the law on the issue can be summarised 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 posts concerned. Such a complex issue cannot be adjudicated by evaluating the affidavits filed by the parties.” …….. ……. …… Burden of proof on the person claiming parity of pay scale:- 20. Ordinarily, the scale of pay is fixed keeping in view the 27 several factors i.e. (i) method of recruitment; (ii) level at which recruitment is made; (iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre; (iv) minimum educational/technical qualifications required; (v) avenues of promotion; (vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities; and (vii) employer’s capacity to pay, etc. 21. It is well settled that for considering the equation of posts and the issue of equivalence of posts, the following factors had been held to be determinative:- (i) The nature and duties of a post; (ii) The responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding a post, the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged; (iii) The minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; and (iv) The salary of the post (vide Union of India and Another v. P.K. Roy and Others AIR 1968 SC 850). 22. After referring to P.K. Roy’s case, this Court, in SAIL, held as under:- “25. In State of Maharashtra and Another v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni and Others (1981) 4 SCC 130 and Vice Chancellor, L.N.Mithila University v. Dayanand Jha (1986) 3 SCC 7, a similar view has been reiterated observing that equal status and nature and responsibilities of the duties attached to the two posts have to be taken into consideration for equivalence of the post. Similar view has been reiterated in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N. and Another (1974) 4 SCC 3 and Sub Inspector Rooplal and Another v. Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Others (2000) 1 SCC 644, wherein this Court following the earlier judgment in P.K. Roy AIR 1968 SC 850 held that the salary of the post alone may not be a determining factor, the other three criterion should also be fulfilled.” 23. The burden of proof in establishing parity in pay scales and the nature of duties and responsibilities is on the person claiming such right. The person claiming parity must produce material before the court to prove that the 28 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, 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)” 34. From the law enunciated in the aforementioned judgments, it is crystal clear that it is not the job of the Courts to fix the pay scales, but at the same time, if there is 29 unreasonableness, the Courts can interfere with the same. Once, the petitioners are also discharging the same duties, functions etc., they are entitled to the same pay scale as granted to their counterparts, who are discharging the duties in the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Judiciary. 35. Learned Senior Counsel for the private respondent Nos.4 to 19 vehemently argued that this very issue was raised in LPA No.11 of 2012, titled, The Principal Secretary (Personnel) & another vs. Pratap Thakur and the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge granting the benefit of similar pay scale as granted to the Junior Translators in the Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha was quashed and set aside and thus the petitioners are not entitled to claim parity. 36. No doubt, this Court has set aside the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and normally the Court will not interfere with the pay fixation and pay scales, but as per the pronouncements noticed above, if the administrative decision is based on unreasonableness, the Courts can definitely interfere. As already noticed above, in the present case, the respondents had earlier granted the pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+3800 Grade Pay, but subsequently the same has been reduced to Rs.10300- 30 34800+3200 Grade Pay without assigning any reasons. This Court would not have interfered, in case, the respondents had not earlier issued the Notification dated 14.05.2010 when the pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+3800 Grade Pay was allowed for the category of Civil Nazir and further the petitioners were not discharging the same and similar duties etc., as discharged by their counterparts in the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Court. As already held above, once the petitioners are discharging the same and similar duties as discharged by their counterparts in the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Judiciary, they are held entitled to the same pay scale as granted to the Civil Nazirs in Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts/Judiciary. 37. The respondents-State while rejecting the claim of the petitioners have not given any valid reasons. Further the respondents-State in the case of Sita Ram Dhiman, who was working with respondent No.3-Commission as Assistant Registrar granted the benefit of the pay scale at par with Assistant Registrar of this Court and once the post of Assistant Registrar has been granted the same pay scale as granted to the Assistant Registrar of this Court, parity demands that the other employees working in the State Commission and District Commission are 31 also granted the same benefits as granted to their counterparts in the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Judiciary, when there is no difference in qualification, functions, duties, powers exercised, charge held etc. 38. Learned counsel for the respondents have also brought attention of this Court to the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-T No.11613 of 2008, titled, Balam Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, to contend that the Record Keepers of District Forum have not been equated with the Record Keepers working in the office of District Judges and in the Registry of this High Court. 39. No doubt, it is not the job of the Courts to equate the pay scale, however, keeping in view the fact that the respondents-State had already issued Notification on 14.05.2010 granting Grade Pay of Rs.3800/- to the post of Civil Nazir, which has subsequently been reduced to Grade Pay of Rs.3200/- without assigning any reason, this Court comes to the conclusion that the said action on the part of the respondents-State is unreasonable, thus, the judgment referred to above is not attracted to the present case. Not only this, even if one post is not equated with another post that does not mean that the other 32 posts working in the establishment cannot be compared with other posts, especially when the method of recruitment, their nature and duties, responsibilities, power exercised, charge held, qualifications, functions and duties performed by them etc. are also very similar to their counterparts in the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts, this Court can definitely give directions to grant the same pay scales. There is no rationale while issuing Notification dated 09.12.2011 when the category of the petitioners has been granted less pay scale. 40. As already observed above, in case of one of the petitioners, who was granted the pay scale of Rs.10300- 34800+3800 Grade Pay, which was subsequently reduced to Rs.10300-34800+3200 Grade Pay, no doubt, he at the time of reducing his pay has not objected to the same, but the injustice which has been caused to him, cannot be allowed to be perpetuated especially when the petitioners are also performing the same duties. At the most, they can be denied the benefits from the date when their counterparts have been granted, by restricting the arrears three prior to filing the petition, but they cannot be denied the entire benefits. 41. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the 33 respondents-State are directed to fix the pay scale of the post of Civil Nazir in respondent No.3-Commission at par with the Civil Nazirs working in the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts/Judiciary and pay the same pay scale to the petitioners herein. However, the petitioners are held entitled to arrears only three years prior to the date of filing the present petition. In case, the arrears are not paid within a period of 3 months from today, the respondents-State shall pay interest @6% per annum thereon till actual payment. However, there shall be no orders as to cost. 42. The petition is accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 02nd June , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge