Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 882

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MAULIK J.SHELAT, J.
Gujarat Forum Of Retired Superintending Engineers (Proposed) & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16801 of 2015
Decided on : 24-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR KESHALKUMAR R PATHAK (12993) MR. SHALIN MEHTA, SR. COUNSEL with MR SHIVGAR P GOSAI(5542)
For the Respondent: MS. NIDHI VYAS, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER RULE SERVED BY DS

Pay parity cannot be claimed based on designation alone. Establishing equal pay requires demonstrating identical duties, responsibilities, service conditions, and qualifications. Authorities possess the discretion to fix pay scales based on objective administrative hierarchy and functional workload, distinct from unrelated posts.

Headnote:(A) Employment Law - Pay Scale Parity - Claim to parity in pay scales based on designation - Determinants for pay parity include nature of duties, responsibilities, powers exercised, qualifications, and mode of recruitment - Simply bearing a specific designation does not create an automatic entitlement to equivalent compensation where roles between different departments or services vary significantly in scope and hierarchical jurisdiction. (Paras 8.2, 9.2, 9.3)

(B) Service Law - Hierarchy and Pay Classification - State has the authority to classify posts and prescribe pay structures based on workload, administrative hierarchy, and functional requirements - Selective comparison with isolated posts in diverse departments is insufficient to establish discrimination or breach of the right to equality. (Paras 9.1, 9.2)

Facts of the case:
Public sector employees sought parity in pay scales with counterparts in other governmental jurisdictions and within distinct departments, arguing that their designation as leaders of their units entitled them to higher emoluments. The authorities contended that the engineering service hierarchy is distinct and that the petitioners had mischaracterized the pay structures by failing to account for grade-pay and hierarchical differences, while selectively comparing their positions to unrelated isolated posts.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the hierarchy of the relevant department clearly delineates the administrative and technical levels, rendering the petitioners' comparison to other departmental heads invalid. Evidence demonstrated that the pay structures were systematically established across the service, and the petitioners failed to establish that their duties, responsibilities, and jurisdictional powers were identical to those in the higher-paying roles they claimed as benchmarks.

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to parity in pay scales based solely on their internal designation, and whether the denial of higher pay constituted impermissible discrimination.

Ratio Decidendi: Pay parity necessitates that posts be identical in all material respects, including duties, responsibilities, and service conditions. As the state effectively demonstrated that structural, jurisdictional, and hierarchical differences justified the existing pay scales, a claim for parity based on nominal designation alone is unsustainable.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and history of litigation regarding pay anomalies. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioners' claims for parity with central government and other heads of department. (Para 4)
3. respondents' arguments justifying pay scales and hierarchy structure. (Para 5)
4. assessment of grade pay differences to reject claims of salary parity. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
5. analysis of hierarchy, denying 'head of department' parity claims. (Para 9)
6. final dismissal of the petition due to lack of merit. (Para 10)

JUDGMENT :

MAULIK J.SHELAT, J.

1. At the outset, it is required to be observed that this petition was earlier decided by my predecessor vide order dated 14.3.2023, whereby this petition was dismissed. The petitioners appear to have carried the matter before the Division Bench of this Court by way of Letters Patent Appeal No.232 of 2024, which was also dismissed on 19.03.2024. Thereafter, the petitioners carried the matter further, approached the Hon’ble Apex Court, by filing Special Leave Petition No. 26470 of 2024. After hearing the parties, the Hon’ble Apex Court, vide its order dated 10.02.2025, passed in Civil Appeal No.2262 of 2025, quashed and set aside the impugned judgment passed by my predecessor as well as the Division Bench. Accordingly, the matter was remanded back to this Court. Hence, the Registry has placed this matter before this Court for hearing.

2. Heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Shivgar P. Gosai, learned advocate for the petitioners as also Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP for the respondent – State and its authorities.

SHORT FACTS:-

3. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 is a Forum of Retired Superintending Engineers (Proposed). It is further the case of the petitioner that, before implementation of the 5th and 6th Pay-Commissions, the Superintending Engineers of the Respondent - State were treated at par in the matter of nature of work with the Superintending Engineers working with Central Government. The State decided to accept the recommendation of the Central Government Pay Commission and accordingly, revised the pay-scale of the petitioners on a scale-to-scale basis by taking a policy decision.

3.1 The petitioner made a representation to the Government to remove a pay-anomaly. Thereafter, the State appointed Justice N. B. Patel (Retd.) Commission, to look into the anomalies arising out of the implementation of the said Pay Commissions on a scale-to-scale basis. The Commission submitted its report to the State. The State vide its resolution dated 23.11.2011, decided not to accept the recommendation of the Commission.

3.2 Thus, the petitioners herein had approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.1779 of 2012, praying that they may be considered at par with Superintending Engineers working in the Central Government in terms of the pay scales. The learned Single Judge of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 11.9.2014, rejected such prayer of the petitioners. Nonetheless, the petitioners were granted liberty to make a representation to the State Government and further directed the State to decide it in accordance with law.

3.3 It further appears that pursuant to the aforesaid order/direction, the petitioners made a representation to the State and, upon considering the representation, the State, vide its impugned communication dated 09.12.2014, rejected such representation.

3.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned communication/decision of the State, the petitioners have again approached this Court by way of this petition.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:-

4. Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the respondent - State has wrongly denied the benefits of pay scales which were available to the similarly situated Superintending Engineers working with the Central Government and arbitrarily denied the report of the Commission without any just and cogent reason. It is submitted that, up-till

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Guj) 882

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADMAULIK J.SHELAT, J.Gujarat Forum Of Retired Superintending Engineers (Proposed) & Ors. – AppellantVersusState Of Gujarat & Ors. – RespondentSPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16801 of 2015Decided on : 24-04-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MAULIK J.SHELAT, J.
Gujarat Forum Of Retired Superintending Engineers (Proposed) & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16801 of 2015
Decided on : 24-04-2026