Point of Law: It is well settled that normally the courts should not interfere with recommendations of an expert body, as it is exclusive domain of State to decide pay scales to be paid to a particular class/category, which it normally decides on basis of recommendations made by Pay Commission, which is a proper authority to decide upon issues and decision of a statutory body like Pay Commission is not subject to judicial review.

ORDER :

Since similar questions of facts and law are involved in all these petitions, same were being heard together and are now being disposed of vide this common judgment. However, for the sake of clarity, facts of CWPOA No. 673 of 2019 are being discussed herein below.

2. Petitioners, are working as Senior Laboratory Technicians with the respondent Department, which is the next promotional post for the cadre of Laboratory Attendants. Copy of relevant extract of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Senior Laboratory Technician i.e. “The HP Health and Family Welfare Department Sub ordinate class-III services Rectt. & promotion and certain conditions of service (Amendment) Rules, 1986” is annexed as Annexure P-1. Senior Laboratory Technicians in the respondent Department are entrusted the duties of over-all in charge of the laboratory work in various medical colleges hospitals and play a pivotal role in the medical process by assisting the diagnostic decision of the medical officers.

3. State of Himachal Pradesh had been adopting the pay pattern of Punjab in the matters of pay scales applicable to its employees. In the State of Punjab, Senior Laboratory Technicians approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, praying therein for revision of their pay scales with effect from 1978 till subsequent stages on the ground that the pay scale being paid to them do not commensurate with their qualifications and experience held and nature of duties being performed by them. High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a number of cases i.e. CWP No. 13425 of 1995, titled Ravinder Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 13426 of 1995 titled Ved Parkash Mangla v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 14095 of 1999 titled Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 15274 of 2003 titled Manju Sharma v. State of Punjab and CWP No. 4343 of 2003, titled as Sikandar Singh v. State of Punjab etc., allowed following pay scales to the Senior Laboratory Technicians :

4. Though the aforesaid decision rendered by High Court of Punjab and Haryana was laid challenge in appeal before the Division Bench in LPA No. 1438 of 2001, but the same was dismissed and the decision rendered by High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Manju Sharma (supra) came to be upheld. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision rendered by High Court of Punjab and Haryana, State of Punjab granted revision of pay scale in the State vide office orders issued from time to time, as is evident from copies of the same dated 27.8.2002 (Annexure P-4), 16.5.2003 (Annexure P-5), 14.7.2005 (Annexure P-6), 12.12.2005 (Annexure P-7) and 20.1.2006 (Annexure P-8). Record further reveals that the revised pay scale of Rs.2000-3500/- fixed with effect from 1.1.1986 stands further revised with effect from 1.1.1996 to Rs.6400-10640 in the State of Punjab. Government of Punjab issued a Notification dated 11.4.2011 (Annexure P-9), granting thereby following revised pay scales to the category of Senior Laboratory Technician :

5. Petitioners herein, who are Senior Laboratory Technicians in the State of Himachal Pradesh and are corresponding category for which revised pay scale has been made payable by the Government of Punjab, made oral as well as written representation (Annexure P-10), praying therein for revision of pay scales at par with their counterparts in Punjab in terms of decision dated 22.5.2003. Aforesaid representation was responded vide letter dated 5.6.2003 (Annexure P-11), whereby it was informed that the matter was considered at Government level and necessary action shall be taken with regard to the same. Since for a long period nothing was heard fro