Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, J
Diwan Singh Negi – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
The instant petition has been filed for following substantive relief:
“i) That the respondents may be directed to grant the pay scale of Rs.5800-9200 to the applicants category, which scale has also been granted to the category of Family Planing Social workers (now known as Health Educators), who were also initially in the same pay scale of Rs.120-250, which was being granted to the applicants.”
2. The petitioners were appointed in the Department of Health and Family Welfare as Projector Operators (Cinema Operators). Petitioner No.5 was appointed on 07.09.1977, petitioners No.1 and 3 were appointed on 26.02.1981 and petitioners No.2 and 4 were appointed on 23.11.1989. At the time of appointment, the petitioners were allowed pay scale of Rs.400-660.
3. After the pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.1996, the pay scale of the petitioners was revised to Rs.3120-6200.
4. The grievance of the petitioners is that various other categories in the same department i.e. Sanitary Inspectors, Health Assistants, Family Planning Inspector, Surveillance Inspector, Malaria Inspector and Superintendent Vaccination were re-designated as Male Health Supervisors in the year 1983. Further, t
The burden of proof for establishing pay parity lies with the employee claiming discrimination, and judicial review in pay matters is limited to unreasonable administrative actions.
The determination of pay scales is the exclusive domain of the state, and courts should only intervene in cases of constitutional violations.
The State cannot impose arbitrary cut-off dates for pay scale revisions, violating the principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Pay scales and post classification are executive's exclusive domain; courts refrain from equating posts absent grave error proof. Equal pay demands identical duties/responsibilities, not just qualifi....
The principle of equal pay for equal work under Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution mandates that employees performing similar duties be compensated equally, regardless of title discrepancies.
Direct appointees entitled to pay parity with transferred employees and departmental counterparts performing identical duties, as unequal pay scales violate Articles 14/16; courts rectify arbitrary a....
The State of Himachal Pradesh is not mandated to follow pay scales set by another State; employer discretion in service conditions is reaffirmed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for establishing parity in pay scales based on comparative job evaluation and equation of posts, and the burden of proof on the pet....
(1) Grant of benefits of higher pay scale to Central/State Government employees stand on different footing than grant of pay scale by an instrumentality of State.(2) Classification on the basis of qu....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
