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) 326

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, J.
Rita Kumari & Others - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Another - Respondents
CWPOA No. 1392 of 2019
Decided On : 12-03-2026

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary and Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocates General

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 anomalies.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Equal pay for equal work - Petitioners appointed as Junior Tailoring Mistresses (later promoted to Head Tailoring Mistresses) granted lower pay scales (Rs.1350-2400 revised to Rs.4400-7000, then Rs.5910-20200+GP Rs.2800/3000/, Rs.10300-34800+GP Rs.3200/) compared to counterparts in another department (Rs.1410-2540 revised higher to Rs.10300-34800+GP Rs.3600/4200/) performing same/similar duties - Transferred employees from third department granted higher scale personally post-transfer - No difference in qualifications, duties, responsibilities - Unequal treatment arbitrary, violative of equality - Parity with consequential benefits and 15% interest from due date, restricted to from date of petition. (Paras 2,3,4,6,8,14,18,19,21)

(B) Judicial review of pay scales - Executive domain but courts intervene if irrational classification or unjust discrimination despite identical duties/responsibilities - Principle not abstract, enforced where equals treated unequally. (Paras 9,13,16,17)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners directly appointed in 1991 as Junior Tailoring Mistresses in respondent-department, promoted 2010 to Head; seek pay parity with departmental counterparts and transferred employees performing identical duties under same qualifications; respondents deny citing distinct recruitment rules, post purposes (practical training vs teaching norms), historical scales.

Findings of Court:
Petitioners granted pay scale parity on both posts with counterparts, all consequential benefits from date of petition institution; no costs.

Issues: Whether direct appointees entitled to pay parity with transferred employees/counterparts discharging same duties despite different recruitment sources/departments; scope of judicial interference in pay fixation.

Ratio Decidendi: Employees performing same/similar duties, responsibilities entitled to equal pay scales under equal pay principle; court rectifies anomaly where transferred/direct employees in same department unequally treated, bound by prior finding of duty similarity.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. pay disparity for similar tailoring posts across departments claimed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. transferred staff performed identical duties as petitioners. (Para 7 , 8)
3. equal pay for equal work constitutional; courts intervene if arbitrary. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. parity mandated for same duties despite recruitment differences. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. prior judgment binds granting equal grade pay. (Para 19 , 20)
6. pay parity granted from petition date. (Para 21)
JUDGMENT :
Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, J.

By way of present petition, the petitioners have claimed to allow them pay scale at par with their counterparts in the Department of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training, on the post of Junior Tailoring Mistresses, as also on the post of Head Tailoring Mistresses, with all consequential benefits from the date of their initial appointment, along with interest @ 15% per annum from the due date till payment.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Tailoring Mistresses (wrongly mentioned as Junior Tailoring Teachers) with the respondent-Department on 08.10.1991, 14.10.1991 and 01.11.1991, respectively. When the petitioners were appointed as Junior Tailoring Mistresses, they were granted pay scale of Rs.1350-2400, which was later on restructured to Rs.1365-2410. Later on, the said scale was revised w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and fixed on Rs.4400-7000, as per the recommendations of 5th Pay Commission. On implementation of 6th Pay Commission, the pay scale of Rs.5910-20200 + Grade Pay Rs.2800/- was fixed and after completion of 08 years of service, pay scale of Rs.5910-2022 + GP Rs.3000/-. The petitioners were later on promoted to the post of Head Tailoring Mistresses w.e.f. 19.08.2010, 13.08.2010 and 09.08.2010 respectively, and were granted pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+Rs.3200 Grade pay.

3. It has been averred in the petition that the counterparts of the petitioners who were appointed in the Department of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training, though performing the same and similar duties as were performed by the petitioners, but their pay scale was of Rs.1410-2540 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and w.e.f. 13.05.1991, 50% of Junior Tailoring Masters/Mistresses were allowed the pay scale of Rs.1800-3200 and the remaining 50% were allowed pay scale of Rs.1640-2940, which was later on restructured to Rs.1650-2925. After revision of the pay scale and after the implementations of 5th Pay Commission, their pay scale was fixed on Rs.5480-8925 and Rs.5800-9200 on 50:50 basis w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and thereafter they have been allowed the pay scale of Rs.10,300-34,800 + GP Rs.3600/-, w.e.f. 01.01.2006.

4. It has been averred in the petition that after revision of the pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006, in the petitioner’s Department, the pay scale of Rs.10,300-34,800 + GP Rs.3200 and Grade Pay of Rs.3,600 on completion of 08 years of service on the post, whereas in the Department of Technical Education, a Grade Pay of Rs.4,200 was fixed. It has been pleaded that there is no difference in the education qualification, experience and other eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Junior Tailoring Master/Mistress as also to the post of Head Tailoring Master/Mistresses and, therefore the action to fix the different pay scale with respect to the same categories in two Departments is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

5. The respondents filed reply to the petition and have taken objections that the petitioners were appointed as Junior Tailoring Mistresses as per the provisions of the H.P. Rural Development Department Class-III services (Junior Tailoring Mistresses) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1989, which provide pay scale of Rs.1350-2400 later on restructured to Rs. 1365-2410/- and subsequently revised. The post of Junior Tailoring Masters/Mistresses were also created under the Department of Industries which were subsequently, transferred


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