The court upheld that salary classification is within the State's jurisdiction, emphasizing the necessity for employees claiming parity to establish similarity in duties and responsibilities.

Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge

1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes ______________________________________________________

For the petitioners: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Manish u Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional o Advocate General.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:

“i) That the records of the case may kindly be summoned and examined.

H ii) The applicants may kindly be ordered to be granted the pay scales at par with their counterparts in Agriculture/Horticulture departments and may be treated alike.

iii) Any other order to which the applicants are found entitled to may also kindly be passed in favour of the applicants.”

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. The petitioners are B.Sc. degree holders in Agriculture/Horticulture. Their initial appointments w.ere as Junior Engineers (Horticulture) in H.P. Public Works Department (HP PWD).

3. A separate cadre of Agriculture/Horticulture Inspectors existed in Agriculture/Horticulture Departments of the State Government. The services of Horticulture Inspectors tin the Department of Agriculture/Horticulture were governed by the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (for short’ “R&P Rules) dated 06.08.1973. The essential qualification for appointment as Horticulture/Agriculture Inspector was deghree-holder in Horticulture or Agriculture with ghorticulture as major subject or equivalent.

i 4. The HP PWD has its own horticulture wing. The HP PWD used to take Agriculture/Horticulture Inspectors on deputation for performing the duties like plantation, floriculture, horticulture, raising ornamental plants and nurseries besides soil conservation. Subsequently, the Public Works Department started engaging their own horticulture experts, designated as Junior Engineer (Horticulture). The essential qualification for Junior Engineer (Horticulture) were exactly the same as tha.t of the Horticulture Inspector in the Horticulture Department. The R&P Rules for the post of Junior Engineer (Horticulture) were notified in the year 1989.

5. The initial pay scale of Junior Engineer (Horticulture) in PWD and Agriculture/Horticulture Inspectors in Horticulture tDepartment was Rs.700–1200. The pay scale for both the categories was revised to Rs.1800 – 3200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986.

6. The post of Horticulture Inspector was re- designated as Assistant Development Officers vide nohtification dated 27.06.1988. The State gGovernment vide notification dated 24.04.1993 not only i further redesignated the post of Assistant Development Officer as Agriculture Development Officer but their pay scale was also revised by integration of the cadres. The entry level scale to the post of Agriculture Development Officers (for short’ “ADOs”) was fixed at Rs.2200-4000 with increase to 3000-4500 after 8 years of service and further to Rs. 3700 – 5300 after 13 years of service.

7. The scale of Junior Engineer (Horticulture) was, however, fixed at Rs.1800-3200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and .was revised to Rs.5800 – 9200 w.e.f. 01.01.1996.

8. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have raised the grievance that they have been discriminated vis-à-vis the Horticulture Inspectors, who have not only been promoted in designation, but have been granted the higher tpay scale. The petitioners are seeking parity with the ADOs (earlier Horticulture Inspectors) on the grounds firstly, that the essential qualifications for both the posts are equal, secondly, both the categories were placed in the same pay scale initially anhd lastly, the Horticulture/Agriculture Inspectors were gdeputed in the Department of PWD on deputation, which i was one of the prescribed modes of recruitment in the R&P Rules, 1989.

9. T