2026:HHC:38082 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.1034 of 2019 Decided on: 07 th September, 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ Sarwan Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners: Mr. Prantap Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioners by way of present petition have prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant the pre revised pays scale of Rs. 4020-6200/- to the petitioners No. 1 & 19 on and with effect from 1.1.1997, the date when the work charge status of Junior Technicians was given to them till date and it is further prayed that the respondent department may kindly be directed to pay the arrears to the petitioners No. 1 & 19 of the above said period along with interest @ Rs. 9 % PA. (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant the pre revised pays scale of Rs. 4020-6200/- to the petitioners, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 excepting petitioners No. 1 & 19, from the date of their regularization till date, with further prayer to pay the arrears to the petitioners of the above said period along with interest @ Rs. 9 % PA.” 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed as Pump Operators from the year 1987 to 1996. Subsequently, their services were regularized. The claim which has been put forth by the petitioners in the present petition is that they were entitled to the pay scale of Rs.4020-6200/- on the analogy of their counterparts in the Punjab Government, who are getting the said pay scale, whereas the petitioners are being paid Rs.3120-5160/-. It has further been averred that the pay scale of Rs.140-300/-, upon revision, was corresponding to Rs.4020-6200/-, whereas the petitioners were paid Rs.3120- 5160/-. On the basis of the above facts, the petitioners have claimed that the respondents be directed to grant them pre- revised pay scale of Rs.4020-6200/- w.e.f. 01.01.1997, the date when the work charge status of Junior Technician was given to them and further the arrears may also be paid to them. 3 3. The respondents filed reply to the petition and in preliminary submission averred that the petition is not maintainable, as the same is bad for mis-joinder of parties. In fact, the date of engagement, date of appointment of all the petitioners are different and as such, they cannot join in a single petition. On merits, it has been averred that the petitioners were initially engaged as Pump Operators on daily wages on various dates. Thereafter, the petitioners were offered a temporary post of Junior Technician (Pump Operator) and brought on work charge cadre in the pay scale of Rs.3120-5160/- on various dates. The State of Himachal Pradesh had clubbed and designated various large number of categories into one category and designated them as Junior Technician Trade (in the pay scale of Rs.950-1800/- with an initial start of Rs.1000/- only), vide Notification dated 30.08.1997 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Thereafter, the petitioners were offered the pay scale of Junior Technician (Pump Operator) Rs.3120-5160/- and they accepted the offer and joined as such, without protest. It was emphatically denied that they 4 were entitled to the pay scale of Rs.4020-6200/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996, which was revised from the basic pay of Rs.140- 300/-. In fact, there was no scale or basic pay of Rs.140-300/- prior to 01.01.1996. The pay scale of Pump Operator as per the Government of Himachal Pradesh Notification dated 01.09.1998, prior to 01.01.1996, was Rs.400-600/- and was revised to Rs.950-1800/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The Government of Himachal Pradesh further granted a three tier pay scale to Junior Technicians in the ratio of 20:30:50 w.e.f. 01.01.1996, i.e. Junior Technician Rs.3120-5160/-, Technician Grade-II Rs.4020-6200/- and Technician Grade-I Rs.4550-7220/-. Since the petitioners were appointed after revision of the pay scale in the appropriate scales of Junior Technician (Pump Operator), they were offered the post of Junior Technician (Pump Operator), lowest grade, as per the policy of the Government. It was further averred that the State of Himachal Pradesh broadly adopts the pay scales of Punjab and the recommendations of the Punjab Pay Commission, yet the State of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to accept the 5 scale of Punjab. The State of Himachal Pradesh formulates and notifies its own pay scales depending upon its pattern, R&P Rules, conditions of service and prescribed pay scale and as such, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. The petitioners have not filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 6. The petitioners are claiming the pay scale of Rs.4020-6200/- on the basis of the pay scale given to their counterparts in the State of Punjab. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh versus P.D. Attri and others, (1999) 3 SCC 217, has held that the State of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow the pay scales as granted by other States. It has also been held that even if in the past as per the policy and practice, the same scales as were granted by the State Government of Punjab were being adopted, the State of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow and grant the same pay scale. After attaining the status of full 6 Statehood, it may formulate its own rules and regulations for its employees. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment read as under: “5. The case of the respondents is not based on any Constitutional or any other legal provisions when they claim parity with the posts similarly designated in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and their pay-scales from the same date. They do not allege any violation of any Constitutional provision or any other provision of law. They say it is so because of "accepted policy and common practice" which, according to them, are undisputed. We do not think we can import such vague principles while interpreting the provisions of law. India is a union of States. Each State has its own individualistic way of governance under the Constitution. One State is not bound to follow the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of the other State or if it had adopted the same rules and regulations, it is not bound to follow every change brought in the rules and regulations in the other State. The question then arises before us is whether the State of Himachal Pradesh has to follow every change brought in the States of Punjab & Haryana in regard to the rules and regulations applicable to the employees in the States of Punjab and Haryana. The answer has to be in negative. No argument is needed for that as anyone having basic knowledge of the Constitution would not argue otherwise. True, the State as per “policy and practice” has been adopting the same pay scales for the employees of the High Court as sanctioned from time to time for the employees of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and it may even now follow to grant pay scales but is certainly not bound to follow. No law commands it to do so. 6. The State of Punjab was reorganised into States of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. Himachal 7 Pradesh, to begin with, was a Union Territory and was given the status of full statehood in 1970. Since employees of the composite States of Punjab were taken in various Departments of the State of Himachal Pradesh in order to safeguard the seniority, pay-scales etc., the State of Himachal Pradesh followed the Punjab pattern of pay- scales. After attaining the status of full statehood, High court of Himachal Pradesh formulated its own rules and regulations for its employees. It adopted the pattern of Punjab & Haryana High Court rules of their employees. When Punjab & Haryana High court gave effect to certain portion of its Rules from 25-9-1985 by notification dated 23-1-1986 as a result of which redesignation of the posts of Senior Translators and Junior Translators were equated to the posts in the Punjab Civil Secretariat, in the Himachal Pradesh High court similar effect was given to in its rules for its employees. When the Punjab & Haryana High court gave effect to those rules from 23-1-1975, the State Government did not agree to the recommendations of the chief justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court to follow the same suit. It is true that till now, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has been following the rules applicable to the employees of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and it may go on following those rules as may be amended by the Punjab & Haryana High Court from time to time, but certainly it is not bound to so follow. No law commands the State government to follow the rules applicable to the employees of the Punjab & Haryana High Court to the employees of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. That being the position, it is not necessary for us to examine different qualifications for appointment to the posts of Senior Translators and Junior Translators that may exist between the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Himachal Pradesh High Court and also as to the mode of their recruitment/placement in the service. Moreover, any change in the pay-scale following Punjab & Haryana High Court can set in motion chain reaction for other employees which may give rise to multiplicity of litigation 8 among various categories of employees. Rules of each High court have to be examined independently. There cannot be any such law that Himachal Pradesh High Court has to suo motu follow the same rules as applicable to the employees working in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.” 7. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.U. Joshi and others versus Accountant General, Ahmedabad and others, (2003) 2 SCC 632, has held that questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, prescription of qualification and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions etc. pertain to the field of policy and exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State. The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under:- “10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy and within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the Statutory Tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules 9 relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a Government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service.” 8. In the present case too, as already discussed above, the petitioners are claiming the pay scale of Rs.4020- 6200/- simply on the basis of the pay scale given to their counterparts in the State of Punjab. The said relief cannot be granted by this Court and it is the function of the executive or the expert bodies like the pay commissions. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again held and reiterated that the Court cannot equate the pay 10 scales, as it depends upon various factors including qualifications and nature of duties being discharged by the employees and it is exclusive within the domain of the executive and the expert bodies and the High Court cannot equate the posts and salaries. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment in Union of India versus Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association and another, (2023) 19 SCC 482 and relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereunder:- “10. Before adverting to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsels for the parties, it deserves to be noted that the power of judicial review of the High Courts in the matter of classification of posts and determination of pay scale is no more res integra. It has been consistently held by this Court in plethora of decisions that equation of posts and equation of salaries 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 crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and the interference of the Court was absolutely necessary to undo the injustice. 11. In State of U.P. and Others Vs. J.P. Chaurasia and Others, while answering the questions as to whether the Bench Secretaries in the High Court of Allahabad were entitled to pay scale admissible to the Section Officers and whether the creation of two grades with different scales in the cadre of Bench Secretaries who were doing the same and similar work was violative of the right to have “equal pay for equal work”. This Court observed as under: "18. The first question regarding entitlement to the pay scale admissible to Section Officers should not 11 detain us longer. The answer to the question depends upon several factors. It does not just depend upon either the nature of work or volume of work done by Bench Secretaries. Primarily it requires among others, evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. More often functions of two posts may appear to be the same or similar, but there may be difference in degrees in the different that cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties. The equation of posts or equation of pay must be left to the executive Government. It must be determined by expert bodies like duties and responsibilities of posts. If there is any such determination by a Pay Commission. They would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was Commission or Committee, the court should normally accept it. The court made with extraneous consideration." 12. The aforestated ratio was followed by this Court in Union of India v. Makhan Chandra Roy. Again, in State of W.B. v. W.B. Registration Service Assn., the claim of Sub- Registrars of West Bengal Registration Service claiming parity in pay scale with Munsifs on the basis that Sub- Registrars were conferred gazetted status, was examined by this Court. It was elaborately observed in SCC para 12 as under: "12. We do not consider it necessary to traverse the case law on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the appellants as it is well settled that equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like the Pay Commissions, etc. But that is not to say that the Court has no jurisdiction and the aggrieved 12 employees have no remedy if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction. Courts must, however, realise that job evaluation is both a difficult and time-consuming task which even expert bodies having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found difficult to undertake sometimes on account of want of relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of employees. This would call for a constant study of the external comparisons and internal relativities on account of the changing nature of job requirements. The factors which may have to be kept in view for job evaluation may include: (i) the work programme of his Department (ii) the nature of contribution expected of him (iii) the extent of his responsibility f and accountability in the discharge of his diverse duties and functions (iv) the extent and nature of freedoms/limitations available or imposed on him in the discharge of his duties (v) the extent of powers vested in him (vi) the extent of his dependence on superiors for the exercise of his powers (vii) the need to coordinate with other Departments, etc. We have also referred to the history of the service and the effort of various bodies to reduce the total g number of pay scales to a reasonable number. Such reduction in the number of pay scales has to be achieved by resorting to broad banding of posts by placing different posts having comparable job charts in a common scale. Substantial reduction in the number of pay scales must inevitably lead to clubbing of posts and grades which were earlier different and unequal. While doing so care must be taken to ensure that such rationalisation of the pay structure does not throw up anomalies. Ordinarily a pay structure is evolved keeping in mind several factors, e.g., (i) method of recruitment, (i) level at which recruitment is made, (iii) the hierarchy of service in 13 a given cadre, (iv) minimum educational/technical qualifications required, (v) avenues of promotion, (vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities, (vii) the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs, (viii) public dealings, (ix) satisfaction level, (x) employer's capacity to pay, etc. We have referred to these matters in some detail only to emphasise that several factors have to be kept in view while evolving a pay structure and the horizontal and vertical relativities have to be carefully balanced keeping in mind the hierarchical arrangements, avenues for promotion, etc. Such a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. It is presumably for this reason that the Judicial Secretary who had strongly recommended a substantial hike in the salary of the Sub-Registrars to the Second (State) Pay Commission found it difficult to concede the demand made by the Registration Service before him in his capacity as the Chairman of the Third (State) Pay Commission. There can, therefore, be no doubt that equation of posts and equation of salaries 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 crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and Court's interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice." 13. In State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh, a three- Judge Bench in a e referred matter considered whether the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work", was an abstract doctrine, and observed thus: "19. Having considered the authorities and the submissions we are of the view that the authorities in Jasmer Singh, Tilak Raj, Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology and Tarun K. Roy lay down the correct law. Undoubtedly, the doctrine of 14 "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a court of law. But equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" has no mechanical application in every case. Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who were left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In service matters, merit or experience can be a proper basis for classification for the purposes of pay in order to promote efficiency in administration. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. The very fact that the person has not gone through the process of recruitment may itself. in certain then also the doctrine may have no application. Even though persons may cases, make a difference. If the educational qualifications are different, do the same work, their quality of work may differ. Where persons are selected by a Selection Committee on the basis of merit with due regard b to seniority a higher pay scale granted to such persons who are evaluated by the competent authority cannot be challenged. A classification based on difference in educational qualifications justifies a difference in pay scales. A mere nomenclature designating a person as say a carpenter or a craftsman is not enough to come to the conclusion that he is doing the same work as another carpenter or craftsman in regular service. The quality of work which is produced may be different and even the nature of work assigned may be different. It is not just a comparison of physical activity. The application of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" requires consideration of 15 various dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work. There may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. Thus normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. These are not matters where a writ court can lightly interfere. Normally a party claiming equal pay for equal work should be required to raise a dispute in this regard. In any event, the party who claims equal pay for equal work has to make necessary averments and prove that all things are equal. Thus, before any direction can be issued by a court, the court must first see that there are necessary averments and there is a proof. If the High Court is, on basis of material placed before it, convinced that there was equal work of equal quality and all other relevant factors are fulfilled it may direct payment of equal pay from the date of the filing of the respective f writ petition. In all these cases, we find that the High Court has blindly proceeded on the basis that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work applies without examining any relevant factors." 14. In Union of India v. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao, this Court reiterated the said position: "26. The classification of posts and determination of pay structure comes within the exclusive domain of the executive and the Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service. There may be more grades than one in a particular service.” 15. In view of the aforestated legal position, it clearly emerges that though the doctrine "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being 16 enforced in a court of law, the equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not of the judiciary. The courts therefore should not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions which undertake rigorous exercise for job evaluation after taking into consideration several factors like the nature of work, the duties, accountability and responsibilities attached to the posts, the extent of powers conferred on the persons holding a particular post, the promotional avenues, the statutory rules governing the conditions of service, the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs, etc.” 10. From the principles laid down above, it is crystal clear that it is not within the realm of this Court to equate the post and pay scale and same is within the domain of the executive. As such, the petitioners are not entitled to the same pay scale as granted to their counterparts in the State of Punjab. 11. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 07 th September, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge