Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 24.07.2025 vs State Of H.P. And Others on 6 August, 2025
2025:HHC:26504
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWPOA No. 772 of 2019
Reserved on: 24.07.2025
Decided on: 06.08.2025
__________________________________________________________
.
R.L. Sharma and others …Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others …Respondents
__________________________________________________________
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes
______________________________________________________
For the petitioners: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior
Advocate, with Mr. Manish
Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional
r Advocate General.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge
The instant petition has been filed for the grant
of following substantive reliefs:
“i) That the records of the case may kindly be
summoned and examined.
ii) The applicants may kindly be ordered to be granted
the pay scales at par with their counterparts in
Agriculture/Horticulture departments and may betreated alike.
iii) Any other order to which the applicants are found
entitled to may also kindly be passed in favour of the
applicants.”
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2025 21:31:12 :::CIS
2 2025:HHC:26504
2. The petitioners are B.Sc. degree holders in
Agriculture/Horticulture. Their initial appointments were
as Junior Engineers (Horticulture) in H.P. Public Works
.
Department (HP PWD).
3. A separate cadre of Agriculture/Horticulture
Inspectors existed in Agriculture/Horticulture
Departments of the State Government. The services of
Horticulture Inspectors in the Department of
Agriculture/Horticulture
r were governed by the
Recruitment and Promotion Rules (for short’ “R&P Rules)
dated 06.08.1973. The essential qualification for
appointment as Horticulture/Agriculture Inspector was
degree-holder in Horticulture or Agriculture with
horticulture as major subject or equivalent.
4. The HP PWD has its own horticulture wing. The
HP PWD used to take Agriculture/Horticulture Inspectors
on deputation for performing the duties like plantation,
floriculture, horticulture, raising ornamental plants and
nurseries besides soil conservation. Subsequently, the
Public Works Department started engaging their own
horticulture experts, designated as Junior Engineer
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2025 21:31:12 :::CIS
3 2025:HHC:26504
(Horticulture). The essential qualification for Junior
Engineer (Horticulture) were exactly the same as that of
the Horticulture Inspector in the Horticulture Department.
.
The R&P Rules for the post of Junior Engineer
(Horticulture) were notified in the year 1989.
5. The initial pay scale of Junior Engineer
(Horticulture) in PWD and Agriculture/Horticulture
Inspectors in Horticulture Department was Rs.700-1200.
The pay scale for both the categories was revised to
Rs.1800 – 3200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986.
6. The post of Horticulture Inspector was re-
designated as Assistant Development Officers vide
notification dated 27.06.1988. The State
Government vide notification dated 24.04.1993 not only
further redesignated the post of Assistant Development
Officer as Agriculture Development Officer but their pay
scale was also revised by integration of the cadres. The
entry level scale to the post of Agriculture Development
Officers (for short’ “ADOs”) was fixed at Rs.2200-4000 with
increase to 3000-4500 after 8 years of service and further
to Rs. 3700 – 5300 after 13 years of service.
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2025 21:31:12 :::CIS
4 2025:HHC:26504
7. The scale of Junior Engineer (Horticulture) was,
however, fixed at Rs.1800-3200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and was
revised to Rs.5800 – 9200 w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
.
8. In the aforesaid factual background, the
petitioners have raised the grievance that they have been
discriminated vis-à-vis the Horticulture Inspectors, who
have not only been promoted in designation, but have
been granted the higher pay scale. The petitioners are
seeking parity
r with the ADOs (earlier Horticulture
Inspectors) on the grounds firstly, that the essential
qualifications for both the posts are equal, secondly, both
the categories were placed in the same pay scale initially
and lastly, the Horticulture/Agriculture Inspectors were
deputed in the Department of PWD on deputation, which
was one of the prescribed modes of recruitment in the R&P
Rules, 1989.
9. The petitioners have tried to point out that even
the nature of duties performed by the petitioners as also
the ADOs are same. The petitioners have placed reliance
on the information gathered by them under Right to
Information Act.
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2025 21:31:12 :::CIS
5 2025:HHC:26504
10. Respondents No. 1 & 2 in their reply have
contested the claim of the petitioners on the grounds that
the petitioners were appointed as Junior Engineer
.
(Horticulture) in HP PWD and not as Horticulture or
Agriculture Inspectors. Merely on the basis of educational
qualification, the petitioners cannot claim the scale equal
to that of ADOs of Agriculture/Horticulture Department. It
has also been submitted that the category of Junior
Engineers in the HP PWD is occupied not only with the
persons having Bachelor’s degree, but by those also who
are possessing Master’s degree though the minimum
requirement may be Diploma in Engineering. Since, in the
HP PWD there is unified cadre of Junior Engineers with
equal pay scale, the petitioners cannot claim higher pay
scale merely because they possess the degree of Bachelors
in Horticulture/Agriculture.
11. Objections as to limitation has also been raised.
It is submitted that the pay scale of petitioners and ADOs
were made different w.e.f. 01.01.1986 itself, the petitioners
filed their representations for the first time in the year
1992-1993 and the instant petition was filed in the year
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2025 21:31:12 :::CIS
6 2025:HHC:26504
1997 i.e. after five years of the submission of
representations.
12. Respondent No.3 i.e. Department of Finance has
.
filed separate reply and its stand is as under:
12.1 That the petitioners at the time of recruitment
were fully aware of the fact about their pay scale and
working conditions as well as about the essential
qualifications required. It was well within their knowledge
that they were going to be recruited as Junior Engineer
(Horticulture) and not as Agriculture/Horticulture
Inspectors. The petitioners being employees of HP PWD,
are required to perform such duties and responsibilities as
are assigned to them by the Department. As per
respondent No.3, the State Government as a matter of
policy is following the Punjab pattern of pay scales in
respect of its employees. The category-wise pay scales of
the employees are determined by the respective Pay
Commission constituted by the Punjab Government. The
recommendations of the Pay Commission are examined by
the Punjab Government at various levels and such
recommendations, which are accepted by the Punjab
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2025 21:31:12 :::CIS
7 2025:HHC:26504Government, pay scales of the employees are revised.
Accordingly, on the basis of the orders issued by the
Punjab Government, the same are made applicable in the
.
State of Himachal Pradesh in respect of its employees after
due consideration and approval of the competent
authority. The pay structure formulated by the Punjab
Government is not violated by the Himachal Government
as such a deviation will affect the entire pay structure
having far reaching consequences.
12.2 Though, at one point of time, the pay scale of
Junior Engineer in PWD and the Inspectors of Horticulture
and Agriculture Departments were identical, but the
Punjab Government has allowed the higher pay scale of
Rs.2000-3500 to the Inspectors of Horticulture and
Agriculture Departments whereas the pay scale of Rs.
1800-3200 was recommended to the category of Junior
Engineers in the Department of PWD. Since, the State
Government follows the Punjab pattern of pay scales on
department to department and post to post basis, as such,
the pay scales of the State Government employees have
been revised accordingly.
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2025 21:31:12 :::CIS
8 2025:HHC:26504
12.3 The Punjab Government further reconsidered
the pay structure of the Horticulture and Agriculture
Departments during the year 1992 and by clubbing a
.
number of categories in both the Departments, constituted
the Punjab State Horticulture Services and Punjab State
Agriculture Services and allowed three tier pay structure
to these services. The State Government also followed suit
and accordingly constituted H.P. Horticulture Services and
H.P. Agriculture Services and accordingly, the designation
was changed as ADO or HDO as the case may be.
12.4 As per respondent No.3, inter-departmental pay
parities cannot be allowed merely on the basis of similar
essential educational qualifications and on the ground
that at one point of time the pay scale of all these cadres
were identical. It has also been submitted that not only the
nomenclature but the job profile of the petitioners and the
HDO or ADO is different. Every category of employees is
required to perform its duties and responsibilities as may
be assigned to it.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have also gone through the records of the case carefully.
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2025 21:31:12 :::CIS
9 2025:HHC:26504
14. Before adverting to the merits of rival
submissions, it will be apt to be reminded about the legal
position holding the field. In P.U. Joshi and others vs.
.
Accountant General, Ahmedabad and others (2003) 2
SCC 632, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the
concept as under:
“10. We have carefully considered the submissions
made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating tothe constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts,
cadres, categories, their creation/abolition,
prescription of qualifications and other conditions ofservice 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 thelimitations or restrictions envisaged in the
Constitution of India and it is not for the StatutoryTribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to
have a particular method of recruitment or eligibilitycriteria 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 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::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2025 21:31:12 :::CIS
10 2025:HHC:26504necessitate. 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 requiredfrom 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 rulesgoverning conditions of his service should be forever
the same as the one when he entered service for all
purposes and except for ensuring or safeguardingrights 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 rulesrelating to even an existing service.”
15. The scope of judicial review in the matters
concerning grant of pay scales, its revision and related
issues is also well defined. The Court should interfere only
when the administrative action is palpably unreasonable,
unjustified and prejudicial to a section of employees.
Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment
passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana State
Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and others Vs.
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2025 21:31:12 :::CIS
11 2025:HHC:26504
G.S. Uppal and Others, (2008) 7 SCC 375, wherein it
has been held as under:-
“21. There is no dispute nor can there be any to the
.
principle as settled in the above-cited decisions of this
Court that fixation of pay and determination of parity in
duties is the function of the Executive and the scope ofjudicial review of administrative decision in this regard is
very limited. However, it is also equally well-settled that
the courts should interfere with the administrative
decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity whenthey find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and
prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in
ignorance of material and relevant factors.”
16. Equally settled is the proposition that the
decision as to fixation of pay and its revision vis-a-vis
various categories of its employees is exclusive domain of
the government. These are the matters to be decided by
the experts and it is not for the Court to substitute its own
opinion. Similarly, in the cases of parity in pay scales on
the basis of nature of duties and responsibilities, it has
been repeatedly held that the expert job cannot be
undertaken by the Court and in case of any challenge
being made on the ground of disparity the burden of proof
in establishing parity in pay scales and nature of duties as
also responsibilities is on the person claiming such right.
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2025 21:31:12 :::CIS
12 2025:HHC:26504
17. In Punjab State Power Corporation Limited
Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jindal and Others, (2019) 3 SCC
547, it has been held as under: –
.
21. It is well settled that for considering the equation of
posts and the issue of equivalence of posts, the
following factors had been held to bedeterminative: -.
(i) The nature and duties of a post;
(ii) The responsibilities and powers exercised by the
officer holding a post, the extent of territorial or
other charge held or responsibilities discharged;
(iii) The minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for
recruitment to the post; and
(iv) The salary of the post (vide Union of India and
Another v. P.K. Roy and Others.
23. The burden of proof in establishing parity in pay
scales and the nature of duties and responsibilities
is on the person claiming such right. The person
claiming parity must produce material before the
court to prove that the nature of duties and
functions are similar and that they are entitled to
parity of pay scales. After referring to number of
judgments and observing that it is the duty of an
employee seeking parity of pay to prove and
establish that he had been discriminated against,
this Court, in SAIL, held as under: –
“22. It is the duty of an employee seeking parity
of pay under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of
India to prove and establish that he had been
discriminated against, as the question of parity
has to be decided on consideration of various::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2025 21:31:12 :::CIS
13 2025:HHC:26504facts and statutory rules, etc. The doctrine of
“equal pay for equal work” as enshrined under
Article 39(d) of the Constitution read with Article
14 thereof, cannot be applied in a vacuum. The.
constitutional scheme postulates equal pay for
equal work for those who are equally placed in
all respects. The court must consider the factorslike the source and mode of
recruitment/appointment, the qualifications, the
nature of work, the value thereof,
responsibilities, reliability, experience,confidentiality, functional need, etc. In other
words, the equality clause can be invoked in the
matter of pay scales only when there is
r wholesome/wholesale identity between theholders of two posts. The burden of establishing
right and parity in employment is only on the
person claiming such right. (Vide U.P. State
Sugar Corpn. Ltd. and Another v. Sant RajSingh and Others (2006) 9 SCC 82, Union of
India and Another v. Mahajabeen Akhtar (2008)1 SCC 368, Union of India v. Dineshan K.K
(2008) 1 SCC 586, Union of India and Others v.
Hiranmoy Sen and Others (2008) 1 SCC 630,
Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others
(2008) 10 SCC 1, U.P. SEB and Another v. Aziz
Ahmad (2009) 2 SCC 606 and State of M.P. and
Others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (2009) 13
SCC 635)”.
31. Though the above arguments of the respondents
appear to be attractive, when considered in the
light of the well settled principles, we find no merit
in the contention. Equation of posts and revision of
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2025 21:31:12 :::CIS
14 2025:HHC:26504
pay scale is within the domain of the Government.
The matter should be left to the discretion and
expertise of the Pay Committee and the
Government to take the decision on the scale of
.
pay/revision of pay scale by considering the
nature of duties and responsibilities. As pointed
out earlier, the Pay Anomaly Committee has given
elaborate reasons for revising the pay scales of the
Head Clerks at Rs.2000-3500 and Internal
Auditors at Rs.1800-3200. The conclusion arrived
at by the experts/Pay Anomaly Committee are not
susceptible to judicial review and the courts are not
to interfere with the decision of the Government
which is based on the opinion of the experts.”
18. In Punjab State Electricity Board and
Another Vs. Thana Singh and Others, (2019) 4 SCC
113, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is for the
employer to classify its employees/posts on the basis of
qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the posts
concerned and to prescribe different pay scales
accordingly. Article 14 of the Constitution of India, would
get attracted only if there is discrimination between same
set of employees not otherwise.
19. A Division Bench of this Court while deciding
LPA No. 445 of 2012, vide its judgment dated 21.11.2016
after placing reliance on State of Punjab and Others Vs.
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2025 21:31:12 :::CIS
15 2025:HHC:26504
Jagjit Singh and Others, Civil Appeal No. 213 of 2013,
decided on 26.10.2016, have observed as under: –
“27. However, the aforesaid submissions of the
.
petitioners cannot be accepted in teeth of the ratio laid
down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh‘s case
supra, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court hascategorically held that ‘onus of proof’ of parity in the
duties and responsibilities of the subject post with the
reference post, under the principle of ‘equal pay & equal
work’, lies on the person who claims it and it is for him toestablish that the subject post occupied by him, requires
him to discharge equal work of equal value, as the
reference post. For this purpose, the employees concernedwith whom equation as is sought should be performing
work, which besides being functionally equal should be
of same quality and sensitivity.
28. Further, in determining equality of functions and
responsibilities, it would be necessary to keep in mindthat the duties of the two posts should be of equal
sensitivity and qualitatively similar. Differentiation ofpay-scales for posts with difference in degree of
responsibility, reliability and confidentiality, would fallwithin the realm of valid classification and therefore, pay
differentiation would be legitimate and permissible.
Therefore, the person holding the same rank/designation
but having dissimilar powers, duties and responsibilities
can be placed in different scales of pay, and cannot claim
the benefit of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’.
29. It has been reiterated in Jagjit Singh case (supra)
that parity in pay, under the aforesaid principal of ‘equal
pay for equal work’ cannot be claimed merely on the::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2025 21:31:12 :::CIS
16 2025:HHC:26504
ground, that an earlier point of time, the subject post and
the reference post were placed in the same pay scale.
The principle ‘equal pay for equal work’ is applicable only
when it is shown, that the incumbent of the subject post
.
and the reference post discharge similar duties and
responsibilities while claiming parity in pay scales under
principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ equation in the
nature of duties is of paramount importance and there is
no comparison between one set of employees in one
organization and another set of employees in different
organizations, there can be no question of equation of pay
scale under this principle.”
20. rIn view of above exposition of law, the defence
raised on behalf of the respondents that they have the
prerogative and right to classify various categories of its
employees for the purposes of grant of pay scales requires
to be upheld.
21. Reverting to the facts of the case, the only
similarity between the posts of Junior Engineer
(Horticulture) in HP PWD and ADOs in the Departments of
Horticulture/Agriculture is that both the categories were
drawing same pay scale before 01.01.1986 and the
essential educational qualifications for both the posts were
also same. As regards the job profiles of both the posts,
the petitioners have relied upon the information received
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2025 21:31:12 :::CIS
17 2025:HHC:26504
under Right to Information Act and placed on record as
Annexure S-5. As per the said document, inference can be
drawn about the nature of duties of Incharge of Nursery at
.
Parwanoo and not the exact job profile of HDO or ADO.
Annexure S-5, only deals with the nature of job performed
by HDO while being posted as Incharge of ornamental
plant nursery at Parwanoo. Such information cannot be
said to be exhaustive on the issue of the job profile of the
HDO or ADO. In such circumstances, it cannot be said
that the comprehensive data even for prima facie
comparison of duties of both the posts has been made
available to the court. Thus, in the facts of the instant
case, the material placed on record cannot be considered
sufficient to warrant interference in the decision of
respondents.
22. Merely because the pay scale of both the posts
was initially same, cannot be a ground for petitioners to
seek parity with ADOs. It has been noticed above that the
evolution in the Department of Horticulture and
Agriculture has taken place for the reasons as explained in
the replies of the respondents viz., the adoption of Punjab
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2025 21:31:12 :::CIS
18 2025:HHC:26504
Pay pattern and needs/requirements which were
department specific. It cannot be presumed that the
petitioners at the time of initial appointment as Junior
.
Engineers (Horticulture) in HP PWD could legitimately
expect that the cadre or category which they had opted to
join would always be equated with the categories of
Horticulture Inspector subsequently re-designated as ADO
and HDO.
23. Similarly, because the qualification for both the
posts is same, cannot be the sole consideration warranting
parity between the two categories for all intents and
purposes whatsoever.
24. It is also the contention of the petitioners that in
the Recruitment and Promotion Rules formulated in the
year 1989 for the post of Junior Engineer (Horticulture),
one of the modes of recruitment was by deputation from
Horticulture/Agriculture Inspectors and thus, it was a
clear indicator that both the posts were being considered
equivalent. Again, this factor cannot weigh so strongly in
favour of the petitioners so as to be sufficient to grant
them the relief as prayed in the petition for the reasons
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2025 21:31:12 :::CIS
19 2025:HHC:26504
firstly, that it has been disclosed during the course of
arguments that in the subsequently amended R & P Rules
for the post of Junior Engineer (Horticulture), the mode of
.
recruitment by deputation stands omitted, secondly, the
promotion avenues to the post of Assistant Engineer and
Executive Engineer have been made available to the
Junior Engineer (Horticulture) and lastly, by the
evolutionary change in the Departments of Horticulture
and Agriculture by creation of Himachal Horticulture
Services and Himachal Agriculture Services, the scope and
ambit of both the categories has substantially changed.
25. In light of above discussion, the petitioners have
not been able to make out a case of parity with the ADOs
in the Departments of Horticulture and Agriculture. In
result, the petition fails and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
26. The petition stands disposed of, so also the
pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
6th August, 2025, (Satyen Vaidya)
(GR) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2025 21:31:12 :::CIS