STATE OF HP v. HARDAYAL SINGH THAKUR

Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN SHARMA

Judgment date: 2026-03-25

Case summary

High Court of Himachal Pradesh judgment dated 2026-03-25. STATE OF HP v. HARDAYAL SINGH THAKUR. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.

Judgment text

[ 2026:HHC:9106 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No: 451 of 2019 alongwith CWP Nos. 2531 of 2019, 2532 of 2019, 2533 of 2019. Reserved on: 17. 07. 2025 Decided on: 25. 03. 2026. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 451 of 2019 State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Petitioners Versus Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Department Non-Gazetted Employees Association …. Respondent __ 2. CWP No. 2531 of 2019 State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Petitioners Versus Jagdish Kumar & others ... Respondents 3. CWP No. 2532 of 2019 State of Himachal Pradesh & others. ... Petitioners Versus Hardayal Singh Thakur & others ... Respondent 4. CWP No. 2533 of 2019 State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Petitioners Versus Gulzar Singh Parmar & others ... Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr.

Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] For the petitioner-State: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, Ms. Swati Kraik, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Shalabh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General in all the petitions. For the Respondents: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate, Employees for respondent in CWP 451 of 2019. Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No. 1, 3, 5, 7 to 9, 12, 20, 23 to 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 37, 39 to 45, 47 to 59, 61, 65, 66, 71, 74, 76 to 89, 91, 93, 94, 96, 99, 104, 107 and 109 in CWP No. 2531 of 2019. Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No. 1, 3, 5 to 8, 10, 12 to 16, 18 to 20, 22, 23, 25 to 27, 30, 32 to 37, 39, 40, 45, 48 to 52, 54, 56 to 58, 61, 62 and 65 in CWP No. 2532 of 2019. Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate, for respondents No. 28, 38, 41, 44 and 46 in CWP No.

2532 of 2019. Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents in CWP No. 2533 of 2019. Ranjan Sharma, Judge The State of Himachal Pradesh, being the petitioner, has come up before this Court praying for the issuance of writ of certiorari, by quashing the common order dated 13. 04. 2018 [Annexure P-1], passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal (referred to as the “Tribunal” herein), in - 3 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] Transferred Application(s), TA No. 2526 of 2015, titled as Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Department Non-Gazetted Employees Association versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others and in TA No. 1530 of 2015, titled as Jagdish Kumar and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others and in TA No. 1813 of 2015, titled as Hardyal Singh Thakur and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others; directing the Petitioner(s)-State of Himachal Pradesh to grant pay scale of Rs 1800-3200 to the Respondents-Employees as Inspector Cooperative Societies w. e. f. 01. 01.

1986 with all consequential benefits within three months and the orders dated 09. 08. 2018 passed by Learned Tribunal in OA No. 4726 of 2018, titled as Gulzar Singh Parmar and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, by directing the petitioners-State of Himachal Pradesh to consider the case of the Respondents- Original Applications for granting them the pay scale of Rs 1800-3200 w. e. f 01. 01. 1986 in view of the orders passed by Learned Tribunal in the case of Jagdish Kumar (supra), subject to verification, - 4 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] in case, the Original Applicants-Employees therein were similarly situated and the aforesaid order has attained finality. 2. Since the factual matrix as well as the issue involved in aforesaid writ petitions is similar therefore, with the consent of Learned Counsel(s) all these matters are taken up for adjudication together. 3.

For appreciating the controversy herein, initial facts are taken from CWP No 2531 of 2019, originating from TA No 1530 of 2015, in the case Jagdish Kumar (supra) [referred to as Lead Case-I] and the facts in continuation are taken from CWP No 451 of 2019, originating from TA No 2526 of 2015, in HP State Co-operative Department Non- Gazetted Employees Association and others (supra) [referred to as Lead Case-II]. FACTUAL MATRIX IN CASE OF JAGDISH KUMAR -LEAD CASE-I: 4. Jagdish Kumar and others, being the Respondents Employees-Original Applicants in Lead Case-I, had filed an Original Application i. e. O. A (D) - 5 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] No. 437 of 2007 before Learned Tribunal and due to its abolition, the aforesaid Original Application stood transferred to this Court and after its re-establishment, the same stood re-transferred to the Tribunal as TA No 1530 of 2015, titled as Jagdish Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh, seeking the following reliefs: (i). That the office order dated 30.

08. 2007, AnnexureA-7, vide which the representation dated 07. 07. 2007, Annexure A-6 has been rejected, may kindly be quashed and set-aside in the interest of justice. (ii). That the respondents may kindly be directed to remove the anomaly in the pay scale of Inspector/Inspector Audit as has been done in the State of Punjab. (iii). That the respondents may kindly be directed to release to the applicants the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 in place of Rs. 1650-2950 w. e. f. 01. 1. 1986 or from any subsequent date from which they are entitled for the same with all consequential benefits. (iv). That the respondent may also be directed to re-fix the pay of the applicants after removing the anomaly in the pay scale and release the arrear with interest @ 15% per annum. - 6 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] (v).

That as all the applicants have been retired on superannuation, the respondents may kindly be directed to re-fix their pension and the arrear of the same may kindly be released with interest @ 15% per annum. 4(i). Respondents Employees-Original Applicants-had set up a case before the erstwhile Tribunal that some of them were initially appointed as Sub- Inspector {later redesignated as Inspector Gr-II} and some were appointed as Clerks between the period from 1957 to 1972. They were promoted as Auditors during the year 1979 in the Cooperation Department of the Petitioner(s)-State and were given pay scale of Rs 570-1080 w. e. f. 01. 01. 1978. While working as Auditors, State Authorities issued a Notification on 16. 03. 1983 [Annexure A-1 in TA file], redesignating Auditors as Inspector [Audit] w. e. f. 16. 03. 1983 and after redesignation, they were given the revised pay scale of Rs 570-1080, which was revised to Rs 1640-2925 w. e. f. 01. 01. 1986 by the Petitioner- State. 4(ii).

It is further averred that on the other hand, in the State of Punjab, though the categories - 7 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] of Junior Auditors, Assistants and the Accountant(s) who were working in other departments were given a lower pay scale than the category of Inspectors but on the recommendations of Third Punjab Pay Commission, the categories of Junior Auditors, Assistants and Accountants were given a higher revised pay scale of Rs 1800-3200 w. e. f. 01. 01. 1986. Feeling aggrieved, the category of Inspector [Audit] in the State of Punjab filed a CWP No. 14174 of 1995, Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and others vs State of Punjab and others, praying for removing the anomaly and for giving revised pay scale as given to the category of Junior Auditors, Assistants and Accountants in other departments in Punjab. It is averred that the writ petition in the case of Harbhajan Singh Bajwa (supra) was decided by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court on 26. 02.

2003 [Annexure A-4 in TA file], by directing the State of Punjab to grant the parity to Inspector [Audit] with that of Junior Auditors, Assistants, Accountants in the State of Punjab w. e. f. 01. 01. 1986 i. e. Rs 1800-3200. It is averred that after passing - 8 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] of judgement in case of Harbhajan Singh Bajwa (supra), the Respondent-Employee-Original Applicant No 1, Jagdish Kumar, submitted a representation to the Petitioner no 1, on 07. 07. 2007 [Annexure A-6 in TA file], requesting to grant the same pay scale of Rs 1800-3200 w. e. f. 01. 01. 1986 as was granted to the Inspectors [Audit] in the State of Punjab in terms of the judgement passed in the case of Harbhajan Singh Bajwa (supra), but the claim of the Respondent Employees-Original Applicants was rejected by the Petitioner(s)-State of Himachal Pradesh on 30. 08.

2007 [Annexure A-7 in TA file] on the ground that the judgement in the case of Harbhajan Singh Bajwa (supra) was not binding on the Petitioner(s)-State and the qualification and other conditions of service of the posts of Inspector [Audit] in the State of Himachal Pradesh are quite different from the posts of Inspector (Audit) in State of Punjab and therefore, they cannot be equated. In the above backdrop, the Respondent Employee-Original Applicant No 1, Jagdish Kumar being the representationist and others, have assailed - 9 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] the rejection order dated 30. 08. 2007 [Annexure A-7], with the prayer to quash the rejection order and for granting them the pay scale of Rs 1800-3200 w. e. f. 01. 01. 1986 on analogy on which such pay scale has been granted to their counterparts in the State of Punjab with all consequential benefits. FACTUAL MATRIX IN HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT NON-GAZETTED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION- LEAD CASE-II : 5.

As a sequel to the factual matrix in Lead Case-I (supra), the facts in-continuation taken from Lead Case-II are detailed herein. 5(i). The Association of Respondent Employees had initially filed CWP No 5863 of 2012 and on establishment of Tribunal, this matter was transferred to the Tribunal, as TA No 2526 of 2015, with the original relief to the following effect:- (i). That a writ of mandamus may very kindly be issued by directing the respondents to grant the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 w. e. f. 1. 1. 1986 in a time bound manner to the aggrieved members of the petitioners association i. e. Inspector Cooperative Societies, on the analogy of Punjab, with all consequential benefits by removing the - 10 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] anomaly of pay scale of Inspector/ Inspector Audit Cooperative Societies, as has been done in the State of Punjab. (ii). That pay of the petitioners i. e.

Inspector Cooperative Societies may very kindly be ordered to be re-fixed after removing the anomaly in the pay scale alongwith all consequential benefits. 5(ii). During the pendency of CWP No 5863 of 2012, later converted as TA No 2526 of 2015, the Respondent Employees, amended the petition, in the following terms: (i)a. That a writ of certiorari may very kindly be issued and office order dated 4. 8. 2012 [annexure P-19] whereby representation of the petitioner association has been rejected, may be quashed and set-aside. (i). That a writ of mandamus may very kindly be issued by directing the respondents to grant the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 w. e. f. 1. 1. 1986 in a time bound manner to the aggrieved members of the petitioners association i. e. Inspector Cooperative Societies on the analogy of Punjab with all consequential benefits by removing the anomaly of pay scale of Inspector/ Inspector Audit Cooperative Societies, as has been done in the State of Punjab.

- 11 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] (ii). That pay of the Petitioners i. e. Inspector Cooperative Societies may very kindly be ordered to be re-fixed after removing the anomaly in the pay scale along with all consequential benefits. 5(iii). The Respondents Employees had set up additional facts that the judgement passed by the Learned Single Judge in the case of Harbhajan Singh Bajwa (supra) was assailed by the State of Punjab before the Division Bench in LPA No 376 of 2003 and same was dismissed on 17. 10. 2008 and after the dismissal of LPA the State of Punjab issued a Notification on 09. 06. 2010 [Annexure P-5 in TA file], implementing the judgment by granting the pay scale of Rs 1800-3200 w. e. f. 1. 1. 1986 to Inspectors at par with Junior Auditors, Assistants and Accountants in State of Punjab. It is averred that after issuance of implementation orders by the State of Punjab on 09. 06. 2010, the Association of the Respondent-Employees submitted representation to the Petitioner-State on 18.

10. 2010 [Annexure P-5 in TA file] for giving them the pay scale of Rs 1800-3200 w. e. f. 01. 01. 1986 as was given to their - 12 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] counterpart-Inspectors in the State of Punjab. It is further averred that even the Petitioner No 3- Registrar Cooperative Societies requested the Principal Secretary [Cooperation] on 19. 10. 2010 [Annexure P-7 in TA file] for giving the pay scale of Rs 1800- 3200 w. e. f. 1. 1. 1986 to Inspectors of Cooperation Department in the State of Himachal Pradesh as granted to the Inspectors in the State of Punjab. It is submitted that even the Petitioner No 2-Registrar Cooperative Societies had sent recommendation to Principal Secretary on 29. 11. 2011 [Annexure P-13] and on 28. 04.

2012 [Annexure P-16 in TA file] for giving the pay scale of Rs 1800-3200 to Inspector [General/Audit] in the State of Himachal Pradesh on the analogy on which this pay scales was given in the State of Punjab with the prayer to give revised pay scales thereof but the claim of the Respondents-Employees herein, was rejected by the State Government-petitioners herein, on 04. 08. 2012 [Annexure P-19 in TA file], on the ground, that the conditions of service of employees of the State of Himachal Pradesh are governed by the State - 13 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] Rules notified under the provisio Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the judgement passed by the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Harbhajan Singh Bajwa is not ipso-facto applicable to the employees of the State of Himachal Pradesh and based on the mandate of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh versus P. D.

Attri and others (1999) 3 SCC 217, the Finance department did not concur with the proposal on the ground that even if the category of Inspector [Audit] in the State of Punjab have been given the higher pay scale of Rs 1800-3200 then also, the said pay scale cannot be ipso-facto made applicable for Inspector [Audit]/Inspector [General] in the State of Himachal Pradesh in view of the fact that the Petitioner(s)- State of Himachal Pradesh is neither bound to follow the pay scales applicable in the State of Punjab nor every change brought by the State of Punjab for its employees is applicable in the State of Himachal Pradesh. In the above backdrop, the Association - 14 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] of Respondent Employees have prayed for quashing the rejection order dated 04. 08. 2012 [Annexure P-19], with the prayer for granting them the pay scale of Rs 1800-3200 w. e. f. 01. 01.

1986 and the benefit of subsequent revised pay scales on the analogy on which these pay scale have been granted to their counterparts in the State of Punjab with all consequential benefits. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES BEFORE TRIBUNAL CASE OF JAGDISH KUMAR, IN TA No 1530 OF 2015- IN LEAD CASE-I : 6. In Lead Case-I, the Petitioner(s)-State had opposed the claim of the Respondents-Employees on the ground that the judgement passed in the case of Harbhajan Singh Bajwa [Annexure A-4 in TA file] was not applicable and had not attained finality. It was averred that the structure-nomenclature of Cooperation-Department in the State of Punjab is entirely different vis-à-vis the nomenclature-structure of Cooperation-Department in the Petitioner(s)-State. It was specifically averred that in the State of Punjab Cooperation Department is controlled by two heads of department i. e. Registrar, Cooperative - 15 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] Societies for the general side and Chief Auditor for the Audit side.

It is averred that in the State of Punjab the administrative control is governed by two separate entities and both entities have separate service rules for respective posts. It is averred that the duties and responsibilities of both the categories -employees on the general side and audit side were entirely different. On the other hand, in the State of Himachal Pradesh, the Cooperation Department was manned by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the structure of Cooperation Department, the service conditions, qualifications, promotional avenues, duties and responsibilities in the State of Himachal Pradesh regarding the post of Inspectors [Audit]/ Inspector [General] were entirely different vis-à-vis structure-nomenclature in the State of Punjab and even the equation-parity between of Inspector in the State of Punjab vis-à-vis the State of Himachal Pradesh was denied. In these circumstances, it was prayed that the rejection order dated 30. 08.

2007 [Annexure A-7] may be upheld and the petition may be dismissed. - 16 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] STAND OF THE STATE AUTHORITIES BEFORE TRIBUNAL IN HP COOPERATIVE NON GAZATTED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-TA No 2526 OF 2015 -IN LEAD CASE-II : 7. In Lead Case-II, the Petitioner-State had filed the Reply-Affidavit by reiterating the stand taken in reply-affidavit filed in Lead Case-I in the case of Jagdish Kumar [supra]. The reply-affidavit indicates that the rejection order dated 04. 08. 2012 [Annexure P-19] was passed by the State Authorities after examining the matter in entirety in view of the Service Rules including the Revised Pay Rules as applicable to the Respondents Employees.

It is th further averred that as per the mandate of 7 Schedule and Entry No 41 in List-II, the State of Himachal Pradesh is fully competent to regulate the conditions of service for its employees and in terms of judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P D Attri (supra), the Respondents -Employees have no right to claim the pay scales granted to counterparts by other States or State of Punjab, when, the issue regarding admissibility of particular pay scale is to be tested by the State Authorities after taking into account the - 17 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] nomenclature, structure of department, service conditions, requirements, qualifications, promotional avenues, duties, job-profile, responsibilities, financial payability and other factors.

It is further averred that unless and until the Petitioners-State adopts and applies the pay scales notified by the other States including the State of Punjab till then, an employee has no right to seek enforcement of pay scales given by another State. In this backdrop, the claim was opposed, with the prayer that rejection order dated 04. 08. 2012 [Annexure P-19], may be upheld and the petition may kindly be dismissed. REBUTTAL BY WAY OF REJOINDER(S) AFFIDAVIT BY RESPONDENTS- EMPLOYEES: 8. In both the Lead Cases, the Respondents -Employees have filed respective rejoinders, reiterating their stand that once State of Punjab has granted the pay scales of Rs 1800-3200 w. e. f. 01. 01. 1986 therefore, same pay scale should have been adopted and granted to the Respondent-Employees. IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13. 04. 2018 PASSED BY LEARNED TRIBUNAL: 9. Transferred Applications i. e. TA No. 1530 - 18 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] of 2015, titled as Jagdish Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and TA No.

1813 of 2015, titled as Hardyal Singh Thakur versus State of Himachal Pradesh and TA No 2526 of 2015, titled as HP State Cooperative Department Non-Gazetted Employees Association versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others} were allowed by Learned Tribunal and the rejection order dated 30. 08. 2007 [Annexure A-7] was quashed and set-aside and the State Authorities- Petitioners herein, were directed to grant the pay scale of Rs 1800-3200 to the Respondent Employees -Original Applicants herein, w. e. f. 1. 1. 1986 with all consequential benefits, in the following terms: 10. The Third Pay Commission in Punjab recommended the pay scale of Rs 1500 -2640 for the post of Inspector Audit Grade-I Cooperative.

The government revised the pay scales of all categories of employees with effect from January 1, 1986 and the Inspectors Audit Grade-I were placed in the pay scale of Rs 1640-2925 without any selection grade whereas the Assistants/Accounts in other departments were given the pay scale of Rs 1800-3200. The Junior Auditors, in the Finance Department were put in the pay scale of Rs - 19 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] 1500-2640 and after 5 years, the pay scale given was Rs 1800-3200. A table to bring out the tentative pay scales, as existed on January 1, 1968, January 1, 1978 and January 1, 1986 per st recommendations of the 1 , IInd and IIIrd Punjab Pay Commission, is reproduced as under:- Sr. Pay Scales allowed with effect from No. 1. 1. 1968 1. 1. 1978 1. 1. 1996 1 Inspector Audit Grade-I 200-400 570-1080 1640-2925 350-500 700-1200 Without any S. G. S. G. Posts S. G.

Posts 2 Assistants/Accountants in other Departments 160-400 570-1080 1800-3200 3 Junior Auditors of Finance Department: 160-400 570-1080 1500-2640 [Rs. 1800-3200 after 5 years service] 11. The post of Inspector Audit was a higher post than that of Junior Auditor and the pay scale of Inspector Audit was brought at par with Junior Auditor. The post of Inspector Audit is filled up by promotion from amongst Junior Auditors. The post was higher and the applicants were entitled to higher pay scale. 12. The Punjab Government took the decision to give this further revised pay - 20 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] scale to its Inspectors Audit on the basis of decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the applicants are entitled to higher scale on Punjab pattern. 16. The State Government while adopting and implementing the pay scale of Punjab pattern should ensure reasonableness.

The State Government being principal employer should ensure that the pay scales are fixed on the basis of duties discharged by the employees. The post of Inspector was a higher post and that of Auditor was a lower post. The decision of the Government to grant lower pay scale to the Inspectors Audit and Auditors is patently irrational. The decision not to grant pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 to the applicants had created anomaly. 17. Consequently, the transferred applications th are allowed, memo dated 30 August, 2007, Annexure A-7, is quashed and the respondents are directed to grant of pay scale of Rs 1800-3200 to the applicants with effect from 01. 01. 1986 with all consequential benefits within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09. 08. 2012 PASSED BY LEARNED TRIBUNAL: 10. Likewise, the OA No.

4226 of 2018, Gulzar - 21 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] Singh Parmar and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others was decided by the Tribunal on 09. 08. 2018, with the directions that the State Authorities shall verify the facts and upon finding the applicant to be similarly placed then to extend benefit of orders dated 13. 04. 2018 passed by the Tribunal in the case of Jagdish Kumar, in case, the order had attained finality/ implemented along with all consequential benefits. CHALLENGE TO THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 13. 04. 2018 AND 09. 08. 2018 PASSED BY LEARNED TRIBUNAL : 11. Impugned common orders dated 13. 04. 2018 passed by the Learned State Administrative Tribunal in TA No 2536 of 2015 was assailed by the State Authorities in CWP No 451 of 2019 and the order passed in TA No 1530 of 2015 was assailed by the State Authorities in CWP No 2531 of 2019 and the order passed in TA No 1813 of 2015 was assailed by the State Authorities in CWP No 2532 of 2019 and the Impugned Order dated 13.

04. 2018, passed by Learned Tribunal was stayed by this Court on 24. 09. 2019. Likewise, the Impugned Order - 22 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] dated 09. 08. 2018, passed in OA No 4226 of 2018 has also been assailed by the State Authorities in CWP No 2533 of 2019. ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT(S) FILED BY STATE AUTHORITIES IN CWP No 2531 OF 2019, IN CASE OF JAGDISH KUMAR- LEAD CASE-I : 12. During the pendency of CWP No 2531 of 2019, in the case of Jagdish Kumar [Lead Case-I] this Court passed an order on 13. 07. 2023, in the following terms:- Learned Counsel for both the parties shall place on record material to show that Sub Inspector/Sub Inspector (Audit) in the State of Himachal Pradesh has been drawing more pay than Inspector (Audit) in the Co-operative Department of Himachal Pradesh. In compliance of orders passed by this Court on 13. 07. 2023, the State Authorities filed additional affidavit dated 21. 09. 2023 and operative part thereof reads as under:- 2.

That it is pertinent to submit here that prior to 1996, Sub-Inspector of the department of Cooperation having pay scale of Rs 1350-2400 was a feeder category post for the promotion of Inspector/Inspector [Audit] in the - 23 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925. However, in the year 1992, the State of Punjab merged the cadre of sub-Inspector Cooperative Societies with the cadre of Inspector Cooperative Societies and thereafter on the demand of the Inspectors’ Association, the State of H. P. Vide its notification dated 01. 06. 1996, copy of which is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A-1 and its typed copy as A-1/T, also merged the cadre of Sub-Inspector with the Inspector Cooperative Societies. After merger, there is only one cadre of Inspector/Inspector [Audit] in the State of H. P. and Punjab.

It is also submitted that the Sub-Inspectors of the Cooperative Department being the feeder category for the promotion to the post of Inspector/Inspector [Audit] were never getting higher pay scales than the Inspector/ Inspector [Audit] of the department of the deponent. In addition, the additional affidavit states in Para 3 that the Sub Inspectors of cooperation department were in the pay scale of Rs 1350-2400 and the Sub Inspectors were a feeder category for the promotional post of Inspector (Audit) in the pay scale of Rs 1640-2925. It is averred that in - 24 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] 1992, State of Punjab issued a notification merging category of Sub Inspectors with that of Inspectors (Audit) and based on the demand of the Inspectors Association, the State of Himachal Pradesh issued a Notification on 01. 06. 1996, (Annexure A-1) merging the Sub Inspectors with that Inspector Cooperative Societies. The Additional Affidavit further stated that after merger on 01. 09.

1996, there existed only one cadre of Inspector/Inspectors (Audit) in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The Additional Affidavit states that Sub-Inspectors in Himachal Pradesh were in feeder category for promotion to posts of Inspectors /Inspector (Audit) and Sub-Inspectors were never getting higher pay scales than that of Inspectors /Inspector (Audit) in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The Additional Affidavit reveals the revised pay sales granted to Inspectors of Cooperative department and the revised pay scales given to the Auditors and Assistants/Accountants working in other departments in the State. The Additional Affidavit indicates that as per the Himachal Pradesh Revised Pay issued on 31. 03. 1980 (Annexure A-2), Sub-Inspectors were - 25 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] given the revised pay scale of Rs 450-800 whereas the Auditors and Inspectors (Gen) were given the revised pay scale of Rs 570-1080 w. e. f. 01. 01. 1978. It is averred that the State Government issued a Notification on 16. 03.

1983, {Annexure P-2, in TA No 2526 of 2015}, designating the category of the Auditors as Inspector (Audit). It is averred that State Authorities issued another notification on 09. 05. 1991 (Annexure A-3/T) whereby, pay scale of Auditors /Inspectors (Audit) and the Inspector (Gen side) was revised from Rs 570-1080 to Rs 1640-2925 w. e. f. 01. 01. 1986. The Additional Affidavit further stated that the State Govt issued a Notification 01. 06. 1996 (Annexure A-1), merging the two cadres of Sub- Inspectors (redesignated as Inspectors Gr-II} with the cadre of Inspector (General and Audit) w. e. f. 01. 07. 1995 and by giving them a unified/common revised pay scale of Rs 1650-2925. It was averred after merger on 01. 01. 1996 w. e. f. 01. 07. 1995, the Sub-Inspectors (renamed as Inspector Gr-II) were to rank as junior to Inspector (Gen/Audit) and their pay was to be fixed in terms of Instruction No 1 - 26 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] below FR 22.

The Additional Affidavit reveals that in terms of Himachal Pradesh Revised Pay Rules issued on 20. 01. 1998 (Annexure A-4), pay scale of Inspectors was revised from Rs 1650-2925 to Rs 5480-8925 w. e. f. 01. 01. 1996 and this pay scale was further revised as per Himachal Pradesh Revised Pay Rules issued on 26. 08. 2009 (Annexure A-5) to Rs 10300-34800+3600 GP w. e. f 01. 01. 2006 and revised scale thereafter. Additional affidavit further indicated that on the other hand, the category of the Junior Auditor in Local Audit department (different from cooperation department) in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Revised Pay Rules issued in September 1991 (Annexure A-8) and the categories of Assistants and Accountants in other departments of State of Himachal Pradesh (redesignated as Senior Assistants) were given revised pay scale of Rs 1800-3200 as per the Himachal Pradesh Revised Pay Rules issued on 23. 07. 1990 (Annexure A-10). 13.

Based on the factual matrix and the pleadings in Lead Cases, the following question arises for determination:- - 27 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] (i). Whether the State of Himachal Pradesh is bound to adopt and grant the same pay scales to the Respondent- Employees which are granted by another State including the State of Punjab ? (ii). Whether the grant of higher pay scale to Inspectors working in Cooperation department in State of Punjab by resorting to relative assessment of pay scales granted to Auditors, Assistants and Accountants in other departments in the State of Punjab could be made the basis for inferring anomaly in case of Respondent-Employees in the State of Himachal Pradesh ? 14. Heard, Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, Ms. Swati Draik, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Shalabh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General for the petitioner-State of Himachal Pradesh and Ms. Shreya Chauhan and Mr.

Surinder Saklani, Advocates, for Respondents-Employees and have also gone through the records. CHALLENGE TO IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 13. 04. 2018 AND 09. 08. 2018 PASSED LEARNED BY TRIBUNAL: 15.

Petitioner-State of Himachal Pradesh has - 28 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] assailed the Impugned Order passed by Tribunal, on the ground, firstly, the Impugned Order directing the Petitioner-State to grant the revised pay scales to the Respondent Employees which were granted to Inspectors in the State of Punjab is erroneous in law; and secondly, the Impugned Order granting pay scales in view of “mere similarity in designation of Inspectors” but by “ignoring other relevant factors” amongst employees governed by different set of rules, who belonged to different cadres in different States was perverse; and thirdly, Impugned Order inferring parity or equation in pay scale as given in the State of Punjab, in absence of any material on record to establish equation-parity and without there being any express conferment of parity-equation vitiates the Impugned order; and fourthly, Impugned Order passed by Learned Tribunal amounts to rewriting the Revised Pay Norms dehors the State Recruitment and Promotion Rules as well as the State Revised Pay Rules notified in case of Inspectors (Audit and General) in State of Himachal Pradesh; and lastly, the claim of the Respondent - 29 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] Employees without laying a challenge to the State Recruitment and Promotion Rules as well as the State Revised Pay Rules was impermissible.

ANALYSIS OF CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED ADVOCATE GENERAL: 16. First contention of Learned Advocate General is that the Impugned Order(s) passed by Learned Tribunal directing the Petitioner(s)-State to grant the revised pay scales to the Respondent Employees which were granted to the Inspectors in the State of Punjab is erroneous in law, as the Petitioner-State is not bound to adopt or follow the pay scales notified by another State or by the State of Punjab. MANDATE OF LAW- ONE STATE IS NOT BOUND TO FOLLOW PAY SCALES PRESCRIBED BY ANOTHER STATE : 16(i). While adjudicating a similar issue as to whether the State of Himachal Pradesh is bound to grant pay scales which have been granted to employees by the State of Punjab was negated with the findings that there is no constitutional or legal provision nor any law commands that the State of Himachal Pradesh shall follow the pay scales which exist in the State of Punjab.

The Rules and - 30 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] Regulations which are applicable to the employees of the State of Punjab or other State are neither ipso facto binding nor can a mandate be issued by directing the State of Himachal Pradesh to follow the Punjab Pay Rules and Regulations automatically unless, the Punjab Pay Rules are expressly adopted by the State of Himachal Pradesh, which has not been done in the instant case. Deprecating such a claim, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in State of Himachal Pradesh versus P D Attri and others, (1999) 3 SCC 217, in the following terms:- 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 & 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 - 31 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] 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 if 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 & 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" had 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 & 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, 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 - 32 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] 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 Punjab Civil Secretariat, 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, 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 - 33 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] 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 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-scales following Punjab & Haryana High Court can set in motion chain reaction for other employees which may give rise to multiplicity of litigation 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 & Haryana High Court. 16(i-a).

While adjudicating a similar proposition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Mahatma Gandhi Mission and another versus Bhartiya Kamgar Sena and others, (2017) 4 SCC 449, has outlined that there is no authority to compel the States to adopt the pay structures - 34 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] which are applicable in Government of India, in the following terms: 60. The Sixth Pay Commission appointed by the Government of India is only a body entrusted with the job of making an assessment of the need to revise the pay structure of the employees of the Government of India and to suggest appropriate measures for revision of the pay structure. The recommendations of the pay commission are not binding on the Government of India, much less any other body. They are only meant for administrative guidance of the Government of India.

The Government of India may accept or reject the recommendations either fully or partly, though it has never happened that the recommendations of the pay commission are completely rejected by the Government so far. 61. Once the Government of India accepted the recommendations of the pay commission and issued orders signifying its acceptance, it became the decision of the Government of India. That decision of the Government of India created a right in favour of its employees to receive pay in terms of the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission and the Government of India is obliged to pay. - 35 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] 62.

The fact that the Government of India accepted the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission (for that matter any pay commission) does not either oblige the States to follow the pattern of the revised pay structure adopted by the Government of India or create any right in favour of the employees of the State or other bodies falling within the legislative authority of the State. The Government of India has no authority either under the Constitution or under any law to compel the States or their instrumentalities to adopt the pay structure applicable to the employees of the Government of India. 16(i-b).

While examining the issue as to whether communications issued by the Central Government governing conditions of service, including pay etc were binding on the State of Uttarakhand with respect to State Universities, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttarakhand versus Sudhir Budakoti and others, (2022) 13 SCC 256, has mandated that the State of Uttarakhand was not bound by any direction issued by the Central Government, unless such a direction was decided to be accepted and adopted by the State concerned, - 36 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] in following terms: 20. We have recorded the facts in the preceding paragraphs. Law has become quite settled that the Appellant is not bound by any direction issued by the Central Government which would at worst be mandatory to the Central Universities and the Central Government Colleges receiving funds.

Thus, any such decision would obviously be directory to State Government Colleges and Universities, being in the nature of a mere recommendation. 21. The aforesaid position has been clarified by the decision of this Court in Kalyani Mathivanan v. K. V. Jeyaraj, (2015) 6 SCC 363: “62. 2. The UGC Regulations being passed by both the Houses of Parliament, though a subordinate legislation has binding effect on the universities to which it applies. 62. 3. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are mandatory to teachers and other academic staff in all the Central universities and colleges thereunder and the institutions deemed to be universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by UGC. 62. 4. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are directory for the universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions under the purview of the State legislation as the matter has been left to the State Government - 37 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] to adopt and implement the Scheme.

Thus, the UGC Regulations, 2010 are partly mandatory and is partly directory. ” 22. The High Court of Uttarakhand in our opinion has completely misconstrued the facts. The Appellant nowhere has made a decision to accept and adopt the circular of the Central Government pertaining to the Registrars working in the Universities coming under its purview. In the absence of any legal right with the corresponding duty, such a relief can never be asked for, particularly when there are clear and specific rules provided for the pay scale of Registrars by the Appellant itself. The decision of the Appellant qua the Lecturers who form a distinct group as against the Respondent No. 1 who holds a higher position in the administration has been lost sight of. Merely because Respondent No. 1 was made to fill the gap by temporarily taking up the job of a Lecturer, he would never become one and so also a Lecturer, who might undertake the job of a Registrar.

This is nothing but an administrative convenience borne out of a contingency. When the classification is distinct and clear having adequate rationale with due relation to the objective, there is no reason to hold otherwise by treating a Registrar at par with the - 38 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] Lecturers. One is meant for administration and the other teaching. The High Court has also not considered the financial implications as any decision would not rest with Respondent No 1 alone, but the entirety of the administrative staff. MANDATE OF THIS COURT THAT STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH IS NOT BOUND TO FOLLOW PUNJAB PAY SCALES MANDATORILY: 16(i-c). While examining the claim of a Sub-Fire Officer in the State of Himachal Pradesh, who was claiming parity in pay scale with his counterpart in the State of Punjab, the claim was negated by this Court in CWP No 8425 of 2010 in Balvinder Singh Mahal versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others dated 16. 10.

2014, after relying on the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of P. D. Attri (supra), in the following terms: 7. In view of the exposition of law in P. D. Attri’s case (supra), it has to be seen as to whether the petitioner has been able to establish violation of any constitutional or any other legal provision when he has laid claim based upon parity with the posts with similarly situate persons in the State of Punjab and claiming pay scales granted in the said State. - 39 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] 12. Tested on the touchstone of the aforenoted broad guidelines and taking into account the exposition of law in Tilak Raj’s case (supra), it can conveniently be concluded that the petitioner has failed to establish on record his entitlement to the pay scale as being paid to his counterparts in Punjab and the petitioner is not otherwise entitled to claim the same merely on the basis of Punjab pattern in view of judgment in P. D. Attri’s case (supra). 16(i-d).

While dealing with the claim of Senior Lecturer in Department of Ayurveda for higher grade pay by seeking parity with counter parts in the State of Punjab, was negated by another Division Bench of this Court in CWP No 2710 of 2018, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Dr. Suman Sharma, decided on 22. 09. 2020, in the following terms: 4(i). ……Therefore, Grade Pay of Rs 6600/-cannot be released to the respondent merely on the ground that Punjab Government grants this grade pay to its Senior Lecturer/Assistant Professor / Reader. Punjab pattern of pay scales will not be ipso facto binding upon the petitioner-State. - 40 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] 16(i-e). While dealing with the claim of Senior Laboratory Technicians in State of Himachal Pradesh, who were claiming parity in pay scale with the Laboratory Technicians in the health department in the State of Punjab, this Court has held in CWPOA No. 673 of 2019, R. P.

Sood and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, that the State of Himachal is not bound to follow pay scales granted by the Rules or Regulations or Notifications issued in the State of Punjab and even if in the past, the State of Himachal had followed the Punjab Pay Scales, then also, the State of Himachal is not bound to follow every change automatically, unless and until the State of Himachal issues its own orders adopting the same and every State has its own legal entity, having own individualistic way of governance and no law commands and mandates the State of Himachal to automatically follow the pay scales of another State, including the State of Punjab, in the following terms: 17. Under Entry No. 41 of Schedule 7 - 41 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] of the Constitution of India, State Government has exclusive jurisdiction on State Public Services. The pay scales and service conditions prescribed under Article 309 are alone applicable in the State.

Thus, pay scales of Punjab cannot be applied until the State Government issues its own orders. 18. Main argument/submission raised on behalf of the petitioners that the State of Himachal Pradesh is bound to follow pay pattern fixed by Punjab, already stands negated/rejected by Hon'ble Apex Court in the celebrated case titled State of Himachal Pradesh v. P. D. Attri, (1999) 3 SCC 317, wherein it has been categorically held that the State is not bound to follow the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of other State and even if it has been following the same, it is not bound to follow every change made by the other State. 20. In view of the exposition of law in P. D. Attri supra, it is to be seen as to whether the petitioners have been able to establish violation of constitutional or other legal provisions when they lay their claim based upon parity qua a post or similarly situate post in Punjab or pay scale granted in the other State. 27.

Division Bench of this Court in a bunch - 42 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] of cases had an occasion to deal with the question, which has fallen for determination in the cases at hand. Vide order dated 22. 9. 2020, Division Bench of this Court in case titled State of Himachal Pradesh & others v. Dr. Suman Sharma, CWP No. 2710 of 2018 and other connected matters, decided on 22. 9. 2020, while placing reliance upon various judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court, has held that the State of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow the Rules and Regulations as applicable to the employees of Punjab or other States, even if it has adopted some rules and regulations, it is not bound to follow every change brought in such rules and regulations in other State. 29. However, having carefully perused the minutes of meeting, Annexure R-4, dated 16. 4.

2013, this court finds no force in the submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioners, because, if the minutes of meeting of the Expert Committee are read in their entirety, they clearly reveal that the State of Himachal Pradesh nowhere granted benefit of pay revision to the category of petitioners with effect from 1. 5. 2013 on the basis of judgment rendered by High Court of Punjab and Haryana, rather, it after having taken note of detailed note presented to it, observed that - 43 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] though always there has been parity in the pay scales given to the Senior Laboratory Technician in Health and Family Welfare Department with that of Senior Laboratory Technician in Punjab, prior to judgment passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana but State of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow Punjab pay scales revised/granted from back dates, on the basis of judgment passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

Expert Committee has specifically recorded in its finding that the parity/pay scales granted to Senior Laboratory Technician cannot be accepted in its totality and there is no cadre of Chief Laboratory Technician in the Health Department in Punjab. 35. Since the State of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow each and every change brought in the rules and regulations in other States, its action inasmuch as granting grade pay of Rs 4800/- is a measure personnel to them with effect from 1. 5. 2013, cannot be said to be bad in law. 39. In view of the various judgments taken note herein above, the State of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow every change brought about in the rules and regulations of the State of Punjab, as such, petitioners cannot seek a direction - 44 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] from this Court to extend the benefit of revision of pay scales, which otherwise has been granted by the respondents with effect from 1. 5. 2013, from back date i. e. 1. 1. 1978. 16(i-f).

Negating the plea of Veterinary and Animal Sciences Teachers’ Association, who were serving as Assistant Professor in Agricultural University and were claiming benefit of two advance increments as granted to the faculty in Agricultural University in the State of Punjab, the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3344 of 2020, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh through Principal Secretary [Agriculture] versus Veterinary & Animal Sciences Teachers’ Association and another, decided on 02. 04. 2024, held as under: 4(iv). …Merely because Agricultural Universities in the State of Punjab have released two advance increments to its faculty possessing M. V. Sc. degree would not mean that respondent State is obligated to do the same. What happens in the State of Punjab in respect of release of pay-scales/incentives is not to be automatically implemented by the State of Himachal Pradesh.

The respondents State has to examine the - 45 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] matter of release of pay-scale /incentives in view of its own staffing pattern, Recruitment & Promotion Rules, method of recruitment, educational qualifications, geographical/ traditional /territorial conditions and financial resources etc. The Government of Himachal Pradesh is not legally bound to follow the Punjab pay-scale pattern. In this petition, we are not even concerned with release of revised pay-scale, but the admissibility of two non-compounded advance increments as incentive to the members of respondent No. 1 association in lieu of their M. V. Sc. Degree. As noticed earlier, neither there is any material on record to suggest that the State or respondent No.

2 are bound to release the increments that are released by the ICAR nor any submission on this point was advanced by learned Senior Counsel for respondent No1 Respondent No 1’s stand alone ground of State of Himachal Pradesh /respondent No 2 University being mandatorily bound to follow the State of Punjab pattern of pay-scales/ incentives, is untenable. 16(i-g). Plea of Workshop Instructors, who were promoted as Foreman Instructors in pay scale of Rs 10300-34800 with GP 4600 w. e. f 01. 08. 2016 in - 46 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] Technical Education Department in the State of Himachal Pradesh for giving pay scale of Rs 15600 -39100 with GP 5400 as given to the counterparts in the State of Punjab, was turned down by this Court, in CWPOA No 6543 of 2019, titled as Attar Singh and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 20. 05. 2022, in the following terms:- 5.

Petitioners are claiming pay scale of 15600- 39100+ 5400 Grade Pay for themselves as Foreman Instructors on the basis of same scale being drawn by their counter parts in State of Punjab. It is no more res integra that the Government of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow the pay scales granted by the State of Punjab to its employees. In State of Himachal vs. P. D. Attri and others, (1999)3 SCC 217, the Hon'ble Apex Court …. ” 13. Following the aforesaid mandate, the Division Bench of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and Others vs. Dr. Suman Sharma, 2020 (4) Shim. LC 2031 …. ” 15. Thus, the qualification for the post of Foreman Instructor in Punjab, in the case of direct recruitment is possession - 47 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] of First Class Bachelor Degree or Master degree and by way of promotion, experience of 10 years as regular Workshop Instructor is required.

Petitioners neither hold the qualification as required for the post of Foreman Instructor through direct recruitment in State of Punjab nor have the requisite experience of 10 years before their promotion. Further, even the essential qualification prescribed for the post of Workshop Instructors in the State of Himachal Pradesh and State of Punjab are not identical. 16(i-h). While negating the claim of Technicians (Junior Technicians, Technician Gr-II and Technician Gr-I working in the Irrigation and Public Health Department-now JSV Department, in the State of Himachal Pradesh for the re-revised pay scale with higher initial start as granted to Technician’s in the State of Punjab from 01. 10. 2012} the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No 372 of 2017, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Narinder Singh and others, decided on 24. 06.

2025, has reiterated that the State of Himachal Pradesh is neither bound to adopt nor to follow the pay scales prescribed by another State, including the - 48 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] State of Punjab for its employees. There is no law which commands the State of Himachal Pradesh either to adopt or to follow the pay scales granted by the State of Punjab for its employees. By virtue of Entry No 41, in State List, under the Seventh Schedule, the State of Himachal Pradesh is competent to regulate conditions of service, including grant of pay scales and the revised pay scales for its employees. Even if, in the past, the State of Himachal Pradesh had adopted and followed the pay scales of another State (Punjab State) then also, the State of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow every change or amendment which is carried out or is brought by another State.

Unless and until the State of Himachal Pradesh by way of a conscious policy decision expressly adopts pay scales granted to its employees by another State, including State of Punjab, till then, an employee has neither any vested right nor any legally enforceable claim for same pay scales which were granted by the State of Punjab to its employees. Even within the same employer, an anomaly cannot be inferred by mere - 49 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] similarity in designation. The onus to establish parity or equation lies on person claiming such benefits and in the absence of any cogent and convincing material {based on the State Service Rules and the State Revised Pay Rules}, such a plea cannot be accepted on the mere plea that the persons with same designation have been granted a particular pay scale in another State, including the State of Punjab. Based on the principles outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of P. D.

Attri, Secretary, Mahatma Gandhi Mission and Sudhir Budakoti (supra) and the judgements passed by this Court, in Balvinder Singh Mahal, Dr. Suman Sharma, R. P. Sood, Veterinary & Animal Sciences Teachers Assn, Attar Singh and in case of Narinder Singh (supra), this Court holds that the Impugned Order dated 13. 04. 2018 [Annexure P-1] passed by Learned State Administrative Tribunal directing the Petitioner-State Authorities to grant the pay scale of Rs 1800-3200 to the Respondents-Employees at par with their counterparts in State of Punjab w. e. f. - 50 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] 01. 01.

1986 is erroneous in law, for the reason, Firstly, as per Entry No 41 in State List under Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, the State Government has exclusive jurisdiction over the State Public Services; and secondly, every State, including the State of Himachal Pradesh is separate legal entity, having its own independent and individualistic way of governance, including mode and manner of prescribing the conditions of service including pay scales and revised pay scales for the employees of state public services; and thirdly, there is neither any constitutional mandate nor any law which commands the State of Himachal Pradesh to adopt or follow the pay scales which exist or have been prescribed for its employees by the State of Punjab ; and fourthly, even the Rules, Regulations, Norms notified by another State or the State of Punjab for its employees are not ipso-facto binding on employees in the State of Himachal Pradesh; and fifthly, neither any Court nor any Tribunal can mandate the Petitioner-State of Himachal Pradesh to adopt, follow and apply - 51 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] the conditions of service, including the pay scales or revised pay scales prescribed by virtue of the rules, regulations, notifications issued by another State or the State of Punjab for its employees ; and sixthly, the Impugned Order passed by the Tribunal cannot sustain, when, the Petitioner-State, by way of a policy decision has not “expressly adopted” either the Service Rules of the Revised Pay Rules or regulations or notifications prescribing conditions of service including admissibility of pay scale or revised pay scales given to Inspector in the State of Punjab; and seventhly, even if, in the past, the Petitioner-State of Himachal Pradesh had expressly adopted, followed and applied the rules, regulations, instructions or norms governing pay scales or revised pay scales, then also, the Respondent-Employees do not any fundamental or legal right to seek its enforcement for all times to come, in perpetuity ; and eighthly, even in case of an express adoption in the past, the intent of the order of adoption has to be tested/examined in facts of each case, as to whether such adoption - 52 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] is perpetual adoption or is event-centric adoption; and ninthly, in present batch of cases, nothing has been placed on record by Respondent Employees to assert and establish that the Petitioner-State had “consciously and expressly adopted” the pay scales or revised pay scales as given by the State of Punjab to the Inspectors (Audit/General); and tenthly, a perusal of the Additional Affidavit dated 21.

09. 2023 filed by the Petitioner-State reveals that by virtue of its legislative competency, the State of Himachal Pradesh had notified the State Service Rules {recruitment and Promotion Rules} and the State Revised Pay Rules i. e. the Himachal Pradesh Revised Pay Rules for its employees, including the Sub Inspectors (redesignated as Inspector Gr-II) by revising the pay scale of Sub-Inspectors/Inspector Grade-II) to Rs 450-800 whereas the category of Auditors and category of Inspectors (Gen) were given revised pay of Rs 570-1080 w. e. f. 01. 01. 1978 as per the State Revised Pay Rules on 31. 03. 1980 (Annexure A-2). The State Government issued a Notification on 16. 03. 1983, {Annexure P-2, in TA No - 53 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] 2526 of 2015}, redesignating Auditors as Inspectors (Audit). After redesignation of Auditors as Inspector (Audit), the State Government notified the Revised Pay Rules on 09. 05.

1991 (Annexure A-3/T), revising the pay scale of the Auditors/Inspector (Audit) and the category of Inspector (General side) from Rs 570-1080 to Rs 1640-2925 w. e. f. 01. 01. 1986. The State Govt issued a Notification on 01. 06. 1996 (Annexure A-1), merging cadres of Sub-Inspectors (redesignated as Inspectors Gr-II} with the cadre of Inspector (General and Audit) w. e. f. 01. 07. 1995 and by giving them a unified revised pay scale of Rs 1650-2925. The Petitioner State notified the Revised Pay Rules on 20. 01. 1998 (Annexure A-4), revising the pay scale of the Inspectors from Rs 1650-2925 to Rs 5480-8925 w. e. f. 01. 01. 1996, which was further revised on 26. 08. 2009 (Annexure A-5) to Rs 10300-34800+3600 GP w. e. f 01. 01. 2006 and the revised scale notified thereafter.

In facts of present batch of cases, the Respondent-Employees, being Inspectors were granted the pay scales and the revised pay scales in terms - 54 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] of the State Revised Pay Rules notified under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of the State Service Rules and the State Revised Pay Rules, the Respondent-Employees, being Inspectors were granted the revised pay scale of Rs 1640-2925 w. e. f 01. 01. 1986 {which after merger on 01. 06. 1996 was revised to Rs 1650-2925 w. e. f. 01. 07. 1995} and these Revised Pay Rules occupied the field from 01. 01. 1986. The Impugned Order dated 13. 04. 2018 {Annexure P-1} passed by the Learned Tribunal mandating the Petitioner-State of Himachal Pradesh to grant the pay scales of Rs 1800-3200 w. e. f. 01. 01.

1986 on Punjab pattern in derogation of State Revised Pay Rules notified by the State of Himachal Pradesh coupled with the fact that the State Revised Pay Rules which occupied the field at relevant time have not been assailed by the Respondent Employees; and nothing has been placed on record by the Respondent-Employees to establish that the State of Himachal Pradesh was mandatorily bound to adopt or follow the Revised Pay Rules or norms which were notified by another State or - 55 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] by the State of Punjab. Moreover, in terms of the mandate of Law declared by the Honble Supreme Court and by this Court, once no law commands the State of Himachal Pradesh to adopt and to follow the pay scales prescribed/given by the State of Punjab therefore, the Impugned Order passed by Learned Tribunal, for granting the pay scale on Punjab pattern, being erroneous in law, cannot pass the test of judicial scrutiny and accordingly, the Impugned Order is quashed and set-aside. 17.

Second contention of the Learned Advocate General is that the Impugned Order granting pay scales in view of “mere similarity in nomenclature or designation” (of Inspectors}, by “ignoring other relevant factors” that employees governed by different set of rules, belonging to different cadres in different States was perverse and is erroneous.

Above contention of the Learned Advocate General has force, for the reason, firstly, similarity in pay scale cannot be inferred “merely on the basis of similarity in designation”; and secondly, in order to infer parity-equation, between both set - 56 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] of employees are needed to have been appointed by the same authority and the eligibility including qualifications, classification of posts, the mode of recruitment, criteria of selection, nature of work, job, duties, functions, responsibilities and other conditions of service in terms of service rules are identical in all respects; and thirdly, the Impugned Order directing the State of Himachal Pradesh to grant pay scale of Rs 1800-3200 w. e. f. 01. 01.

1986 on Punjab Pattern cannot be made applicable in the Petitioner-State of Himachal Pradesh, when, in the State of Punjab, the Inspectors had claimed pay scale of Rs 1800-3200, {which was a selection grade} as given to the categories of Auditors in other departments and as given to Assistants / Accountants in the State of Punjab ; and fourthly, in the State of Himachal Pradesh, by virtue of the Himachal Pradesh Revised Pay Rules notified on 23. 07. 1990 (Annexure A-10), the Assistants and Accountants working in other departments of the State of Himachal Pradesh (redesignated as Senior Assistants) were already given the revised pay scale - 57 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] of Rs 1800-3200 w. e. f. 01. 01. 1986 ; and fifthly, in the State of Himachal Pradesh, though the Junior Auditors working in other departments, including Local Audit of Finance department were granted the pay scale of Rs 1500-2640 with selection grade of Rs 1800-3200 after 5 years of service on or after 01. 01.

1986 as per the Himachal Pradesh Revised Pay Rules notified on 12. 09. 1991 (Annexure A-8) and once nothing has been placed on record to establish wholesome and wholesale identity between Junior Auditors in the Local Audit in Finance Department vis-à-vis Respondent Employees, being Inspectors in Cooperation Department in the State of Himachal Pradesh, based on eligibility (including qualifications), mode of selection-recruitment, factum of having been appointed by same or different authority, nature of work, job profile, duties, functions, value of work, difference in skills and responsibilities, reliability, dexterity and the conditions of service including the promotional avenues etc.

therefore, the Impugned Order directing the State of Himachal Pradesh to grant pay scale of Rs 1800-3200, which in-fact was - 58 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] a selection grade granted to the Junior Auditors cannot be ipso facto granted to Respondent-Employees herein; and sixthly, merely because the selection grade of Rs 1800-3200 w. e. f. 01. 01. 1986 has been granted to the Junior Auditors in State of Punjab and/or in the State of Himachal Pradesh cannot form the basis for granting this scale to Respondents -Employees, who were Inspectors in the Cooperation Department of the Petitioner-State; and seventhly, the issue as to whether the Respondent-Employees, being Inspectors were to be granted the selection grade or not w. e. f. 01. 01.

1986 fell within the domain of the expert body or the pay commission or the State and the same cannot be automatically claimed as of right unless the state-employer by a policy decision decides to grant the selection grade to the Respondent-Employees; and seventhly, even the Respondents-Employees have not placed on record any statutory rule or norm etc. which creates an enforceable legal right for granting the selection grade of Rs 1800-3200 w. e. f. 01. 01. 1986 to all employees, including the Inspectors irrespective of - 59 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] any other preconditions as of right; and eighthly, nothing has been placed on record by Respondent Employees to establish that the selection grade was admissible for the post of Inspectors in Cooperation Department after 01. 01.

1986; and ninthly, once the subject post (Inspectors in Cooperation department) and the reference post (Junior Auditors in Local Audit department under Finance Department) are different entities, constituting different cadres, under different establishments, having dissimilar eligibility conditions including qualifications and have dissimilar powers, job profile, duties, responsibilities, promotional avenues etc. and both were governed by different set of rules therefore, mere similarity in nomenclature or designation cannot be the sole determinative test for inferring parity-equation; and tenthly, in the present batch of cases, once the Petitioner State had notified the State Revised Pay Rules on 09. 05.

1991 (Annexure A-3, with additional affidavit filed in case of Jagdish Kumar) discontinuing the selection grade for Inspectors-Respondents-Employees but the Respondent Employees have slept over their - 60 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] rights as well as remedies and had acquiesced to discontinuance or non-grant of selection grade from 1991 till their respective retirements coupled with the fact only Respondent no 1, woke up from the slumber after 16 years and submitted representation on 07. 07. 2007 and acquiescence disentitles the Respondent-Employees for any relief ; and lastly, in totality of circumstances, the Impugned Order dated 13. 04. 2018 {Annexure P-1} mandating the State of Himachal Pradesh-petitioners to grant the pay scale on Punjab pattern, cannot pass the test of judicial scrutiny, in view of the mandate of law discussed herein, and thus the Impugned Order is interdicted and set-aside.

EQUATION BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT CADRES OR EMPLOYEES GOVERNED BY DIFFERENT SET OF RULES OR DIFFERENT ENTITIES IS IMPERMISSIBLE: 17(i).

While outlining the broad parameters for invoking “equal pay for equal work”, the Honble Supreme Court has held in State of Punjab versus Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148, that “onus of proof” of parity between the subject post and reference post is of the person, who claims it by establishing - 61 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] that “unequal pay scales is based on no classification or irrational classification” and further mandated that in case, the subject post and reference post are in different establishments, having different management having different control under different entities and if both these post are in different geographical locations and merely because at any earlier point of time, the subject post and reference post were placed in the same pay scale cannot be a ground to accept the plea of equal pay for equal work and mere nomenclature cannot be determinative of parity.

Claim for parity or equal pay for equal work” is neither attracted nor can it be accorded, in case of “dissimilar powers, duties, responsibilities and even absence of proof of equal sensitivity, qualitatively responsibility, reliability and confidentiality, volume of work, the mode of recruitment and pay scales can be different if hierarchy and promotional avenues of the subject post and reference post is different. 17(i-a).

Even if parity existed in the past, then the same cannot made the basis for same pay scales ignoring the difference in method of recruitment and - 62 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] qualifications and the fact that the posts were in different organizations, has been answered by the Honble Three Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation Security Staff Union (Regd) versus Delhi Transport Corporation (2018) 16 SCC 619, by mandating that the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” should not be misunderstood and misapplied, by freely revising and enhancing pay scales across the board and Tribunals shall exercise restraint, in absence of any material to hold that pay scale were consciously kept at par keeping in mind aspects with regard to qualifications nature of duties etc. Merely because the pay scales may have been remained the same cannot lead to conclusion of a conscious parity. 17(i-b).

Claim of incumbents for same pay scales alleging discrimination or arbitrariness was turned down in an eventuality where two set of persons belonged to different cadres and were governed by two set of rules by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hirandra Kumar versus High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and another (2020) 17 SCC 401, in - 63 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] the following terms: 29. For the same reason, no case of discrimination or arbitrariness can be made out on the basis of a facial comparison of the Higher Judicial Service Rules, with the Rules governing Nyayik Sewa. Both sets of rules cater to different cadres. A case of discrimination cannot be made out on the basis of a comparison of two sets of rules which govern different cadres. 17(i-c).

Claim for same pay scales, where the two groups are not equal and both do not belong to a homogenous group or class of persons and were not similarly placed, was turned down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sudhir Budakoti (supra) in the following terms: 17. The question as to whether a classification is reasonable or not is to be answered on the touchstone of a reasonable, common man’s approach, keeping in mind the avowed object behind it. If the right to equality is to be termed as a genus, a right to non-discrimination becomes a specie. When two identified groups are not equal, certainly they cannot be treated as a homogeneous group. A reasonable classification thus certainly would not injure the equality enshrined - 64 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] under Article 14 when there exists an intelligible differentia between two groups having a rational relation to the object.

Therefore, an interference would only be called for on the court being convinced that the classification causes inequality among similarly placed persons. The role of the court being restrictive, generally, the task is best left to the concerned authorities. When a classification is made on the recommendation made by a body of experts constituted for the purpose, courts will have to be more wary of entering into the said arena as its interference would amount to substituting its views, a process which is best avoided. 18. As long as the classification does not smack of inherent arbitrariness and conforms to justice and fair play, there may not be any reason to interfere with it. It is the wisdom of the other wings which is required to be respected except when a classification is bordering on arbitrariness, artificial difference and itself being discriminatory. A decision made sans the aforesaid situation cannot be tested with either a suspicious or a microscopic eye.

Good-faith and intention are to be presumed unless the contrary exists. One has to keep in mind that the role of the court is on the illegality involved - 65 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] as against the governance. 17(i-d). Plea for parity-equation between persons belonging to different cadres and in different States [which in present batch of cases relates to Himachal Pradesh vis-à-vis Punjab] was negated/repelled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary and others versus Seema Sharma, (2023) 14 SCC 376, in the following terms: 18. In Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (supra), this Court further held that it was well-settled that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work could only be invoked when the employees were similarly circumstanced in every way. Mere similarity of designation or similarity or quantum of work was not determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales.

The Court had to consider all the relevant factors such as the mode of recruitment, qualifications for the post, the nature of work, the value of work, responsibilities involved and various other factors. 23. The fixation of scales of pay is a matter of policy, with which the Courts can only interfere in exceptional cases where there is discrimination between two sets of employees appointed - 66 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] by the same authority, in the same manner, where the eligibility criteria is the same and the duties are identical in every aspect. Based on the principle of law as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Jagjit Singh, DTC Security Staff Union, Hirandra Kumar, Sudhir Budakoti and Seema Sharma [supra] and for reasons stated {as discussed in Para 17 above}, the Impugned order directing the State of Himachal Pradesh to grant pay scale of Rs 1800- 3200 w. e. f. 01. 01.

1986 to the Respondents-Employees on the Punjab pattern cannot sustain, when, the Respondent Employees herein, belonged to different Services under different States, who are governed by distinctive Service Rules with variance in eligibility, qualifications, mode of recruitment and when, both are governed by distinctive State Service Rules and State Revised Pay Rules and Respondent Employees do not belong to one homogenous group of employees within the same State. In these circumstances, the Impugned Order dated 13. 04. 2018 passed by the Learned Tribunal inferring equation-parity in favour - 67 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] of Respondents-Employees on mere ipse-dixit cannot sustain and therefore, Impugned Order is interdicted and accordingly set-aside. 18. Third contention of Learned Advocate General is that Impugned Order dated 13. 04.

2018, inferring parity-equation to the Respondents-Employees with the employees in the State of Punjab in absence of any material to establish parity-equation and also in the absence of any express equation-parity having been granted by the Petitioner-State of Himachal Pradesh for giving pay scale/selection grade of Rs 1800-3200 w. e. f. 01. 01. 1986 {as Inspectors}, is erroneous in law. Above contention of the Learned Advocate General has force, for the reason, that the fixation of pay and grant of selection grade or time scales and extent of revision, date(s) of its implementation and the issue regarding determination of equation or parity has to be tested by taking into account various parameters i. e. the mode of recruitment, eligibility and qualification(s), nature of work, value of work, responsibilities, duties in the backdrop - 68 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] of social, revenue and economic conditions besides exigencies and diverse situation within the exclusive domain of an employer.

Right to parity-equation can accrue in case an employer takes a conscious decision to equate two or more posts and in the absence of any conscious decision having been taken by the State of Himachal Pradesh, no legally enforceable right accrues to Respondent Employees for parity-equation, either with the counterparts in the State of Punjab or with the category of junior Auditors or Assistants/Accountants in the State of Punjab and also within the Petitioner-State, which is absent, in the present batch of cases. ANOMALY IN PAY CANNOT BE INFERRED IN ABSENCE OF EXPRESS EQUATION OF POSTS: VITIATES IMPUGNED ORDER AND DISENTITLES EMPLOYEES FOR RELIEF: 18(i). Perusal of the paper book indicates that there is no material on record to prove and establish that the petitioner-State of Himachal Pradesh had taken any conscious decision to equate Inspectors [Audit]/Inspector [General] with corresponding category of employees in the State of Punjab.

An anomaly in pay arises only if the State Authorities by - 69 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] way of conscious decision equates two or more posts {notwithstanding their different nomenclature or distinct qualifications or dissimilarity}. In absence of any conscious express equation, no anomaly is inferable and employees have neither any vested nor indefeasible right to claim parity. 18(i-a). While dealing with a similar fact-situation the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Versus Virendra Bahadur Katheria and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine 1712, has mandated that parity cannot be claimed as an indefeasible and enforceable right except, where, the competent authority has taken a conscious decision to equate two posts notwithstanding their different nomenclature or their distinct qualifications. In the absence of any express equation between the two posts, right of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be said to have been infringed.

Even the job relating to the creation, merger, de-merger or amalgamation of cadres within a service is the prerogative of the State, which is founded on a policy decision, and such decision - 70 - [ 2026:HHC:9106 ] is not subject to judicial review unless it is found to be brazenly offending Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, in the following terms: 53. It needs no emphasis that prescription of pay scale for a post entails Policy decision based upon the recommendations of an expert body like Pay Commission. All that the State is obligated to ensure is that the pay structure of a promotional or higher post is not lower than the feeder cadre. Similarly, pay parity cannot be claimed as an indefeasible enforceable right save and except where the Competent Authority has taken a conscious decision to equate two posts notwithstanding their different nomenclature or distinct qualifications.

Incidental grant of same pay scale to two or more posts, without any express equation amongst such posts, cannot be termed as an anomaly in a pay scale of a nature which can be said to have infringed the right to equality under Article 16 of our Constitution. 54. Equally well settled is that the creation, merger, de-merger or amalgamation of cadres within a service to bring efficacy or in the administrative exigencies, is the State's prerogative. The Court in exercise of its power of judicial review would sparingly interfer

Source: High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.