SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(HP) 165

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ, J.
Nek Ram And Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P And Others - Respondents
CWPOA No.1556 of 2019
Decided On : 17-03-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr.Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr.Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General

The determination of pay scales is the exclusive domain of the state, and courts should only intervene in cases of constitutional violations.

Headnote:(A) Salary and Wages - Pay Revision - Petitioners sought a pay scale revision from Rs. 950-1800 to Rs. 3330-6200 from 01.01.1996, claiming their pay scale should align with Punjab Government standards. (Paras 1, 6)

(B) State Policy - The state is not bound to adopt pay scales from another state, and the fixing of pay scales is a prerogative of the state government, subject to constitutional principles. (Paras 13, 18)

(C) Judicial Review - Pay scale determinations and classifications are primarily within the executive domain and not the judiciary’s responsibility. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were Technical Masters whose pay scales were not revised as per those of their counterparts in Punjab. They contested the state’s refusal to grant the revised scale based on assurances received and the previous classifications. (Paras 2-5)

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the petitioners were not entitled to the revision sought and reiterated the state’s discretion regarding pay scales, emphasizing the executive’s domain in such matters.

Issues: Whether the state government is legally bound to follow Punjab pay scales and the authority of courts in revising pay scales.

Ratio Decidendi: The judgment highlighted the state’s autonomy in determining pay scales based on local policies and the limited role of courts in reviewing such decisions unless they violate constitutional provisions.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek higher pay scale. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioners claim parity with punjab pay scale. (Para 4 , 5)
3. state argues petition bad for non-joinder. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. state not bound by punjab pay scales. (Para 9)
5. court reiterates executive's domain in pay scales. (Para 10 , 14)
6. petitioners argue for parity based on job similarity. (Para 11 , 12)
7. judicial review limited to executive decision-making. (Para 13 , 15 , 17 , 18)
8. writ petition dismissed without merit. (Para 16 , 19 , 20)
JUDGMENT :
Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, J.

1.By way of present petition, the petitioners have prayed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-

“i) That the pay scale of petitioners may be ordered to be revised from Rs. 950-1800 to Rs. 3330-6200 instead of Rs. 3120-5150 with effect from 1.1.1996 and further pay revision may also be ordered to be made on the basis of pay fixation with effect from 1.1.1996.

ii) That the arrears on account of the pay revision may be ordered to be released to the petitioners with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.”

2. As per pleadings in the writ petition, petitioner No.1 initially appointed as Weaving Master with the respondent-State, who joined his duties on 11.03.1981. Petitioner No.2 was appointed as Weaving Instructor, who joined his duties on 12.12.1981 and petitioner No.3 was appointed as Carpenter Master, who joined his duties on 25.10.1997. Later on as per Notification dated 22.11.1995 (Annexure P-2), the aforesaid categories against which the petitioners were working were re-designated as Junior Technician (Weaving Master/Instructor) and Junior Technician (Carpenter Master). Vide Notification dated 19.05.1998 issued by the Punjab Government, the pay-scales of various categories were revised and the pay-scale of Technical Masters was revised from Rs.950-1800/- to Rs.3330-6200/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996.

3. It has been averred in the petition that the State Government of H.P. has taken a policy decision to adopt the pay-scales as admissible to the employees of Punjab Government and pursuant to the revision of pay-scale w.e.f 01.01.1996, the pay-scale of petitioners was revised from Rs.950-1800/-to Rs.3120-5160/- as per (Annexure P-4).

4. The pay-scale of Technical Masters in the Department of Prisons in the State of Punjab was Rs.950- 1800/- (pre-revised) and the pay scale of Weaving Master/Instructor and Carpenter Master was also Rs.950-1800/- (pre-revised). Since the petitioners were not allowed the pay-scale as admissible to their counterparts in the State of Punjab, they made representation dated 02.08.2002 (Annexure P-6), requesting therein to revise their pay from Rs.950-1800/- to Rs.3330-6200/- instead of Rs.3120-5160/- with effect from 01.01.1996. Acting on the representation of the petitioners, respondent No.2 submitted various letters to respondent No.1, whereby the case of the petitioners was found to be genuine and requested respondent No.1 to notify the revised pay-scale of Rs.3330-6200/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996, instead of pay-scale of Rs.3120-5160/-. Despite making request by respondent No.2, respondent No.1 kept on assuring that the grievance of the petitioners shall be redressed. Lastly, respondent No.2 vide communication dated 19.07.2012 (Annexure P-10) had written to respondent No.1 to get the revised pay-scale of the petitioners from Rs.3330- 6200/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996.

5. The petitioners have pleaded in the petition that there are only three/four persons working in the Department of Prisons, who will be benefited in case the anomaly is removed, as there was no other person working against the aforesaid category of Technicians. It has been pleaded that respondent No.2 had justified the demand raised by the petitioners to be legal and justified and thus, there was no justification on the part of respondent No.1 to delay the issuance of Notification with regard to revision of pay-scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and further revision of pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006.

6. Respondents No.1 and


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top