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.

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, the Male and Female Health Workers in the respondent- department (subsequently redesignated as Family Planning Social Workers), who were drawing pay scale of Rs.400-600, were allowed higher pay scale of Rs.510-940 in the year 1983 and further enhanced from Rs.510-940 to Rs.680-1120 in the year 1986.

5. As per petitioners, the pay scale of Family Planning Social Workers was revised to Rs.5800-9200 w.e.f. 01.01.1996, whereas the petitioners, who at one point of time, were also drawing the pay scale at par with the Family Planning Social Workers, were allowed the revision of pay scale of Rs.3120-6200.

6. The petitioners have alleged discrimination at the hands of the respondents in the grant of pay scales. The case of the petitioners is that when at one point of time the category of Projector Operators (Cinema Operators) was granted pay scale at par with the Family Planning Social Workers, the action of the respondents in discriminating the petitioners vis a vis Family Planning Social Workers in the matter of grant of pay revisions is without any justification.

7. The petitioners have further alleged that they submitted a representation dated 23.01.1999 to respondent No.1. The representation of the petitioners was forwarded to the anomalies committee of 4^th Punjab Pay Commission, but no decision was taken on the representation of the petitioners, forcing them to approach the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal in the year 2000 by way of instant petition.

8. In addition, the petitioners have further alleged that the Cinema Operators in the Department of Public Relations, Government of Himachal Pradesh, who are engaged for the identical job, have also been allowed higher pay scale than that of the petitioners.

9. The respondents have contested the claim of the petitioners on the grounds firstly, that the category of Projector Operators (Cinema Operators) in the Department of Health and Family Welfare is entirely different than the category of Family Planning Social Workers, as the job of Family Planning Social Workers is of technical nature and they are required to have diploma in Public Health, secondly, it has been asserted that the Government of Himachal Pradesh follows the Punjab pattern of pay scales and the category of petitioners has been granted the same pay scale which has been granted to their counter parts in Punjab and lastly, the comparison sought by the petitioners with the Cinema Operators in Public Relations Department has also been rebutted by contesting that the nature of job in both the Departments has distinguishing features.

10. The petitioners have filed the rejoinder and have reiterated their stand taken in the petition.

11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

12. The scope of judicial