The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' cannot be invoked to bypass statutory cadre structures; the determination of pay scales is an executive function, and mere possession of qualifications or performance of similar duties does not justify parity if the posts, responsibilities, and sensitivity remain distinct.

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 12.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWPOA No.3016 of 2020, titled, Parkash Chand vs. State of H.P. and others, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.

The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “writ petitioner”) had filed the writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to pay him the pay-scale of Workshop Instructor on the analogy of ‘equal pay for equal work’ since he was discharging the function of Workshop Instructor from the day of his appointment along with the designation with all consequential benefits.

The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Mechanoic Motor Driving (hereinafter referred to be as “MMD”) on contract basis in Government Polytechnic College, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. in the year 2004 on the initial stage of the pay-scale with 50% D.A. i.e. Rs.3330/- + 50% D.A. Later on, services of the petitioner were regularized vide office order dated 16.08.2012, on the same post, in the pay-scale of Rs.5910-20200/- + 2000 GP with initial start of Rs.8240/-.

The claim put forth by the petitioner in the writ petition was not accepted by the respondents-State. Consequently, the petitioner filed the writ petition on the ground that since he is discharging the duties of Workshop Instructor and the work entrusted to him was that of a Workshop Instructor i.e. teaching, theoretical and practical, he may be granted the pay of Workshop Instructor, in the pay band of Rs.10300-34800 + Rs.3600/- Grade Pay.

The respondents-State filed reply to the writ petition and submitted that anomaly which is claimed against the post is having different nomenclature, duties and responsibilities. It was further submitted that simply possessing the essential qualifications required for the post is not a ground for claiming parity of the pay-scale. The staff structure in the Workshops in the Polytechnics of the State is that there were posts of the Workshop Instructors in the pay band of Rs.10300-34800 + Rs.3600/- Grade Pay who is the overall incharge of the respective Shops viz. Workshop Instructor, Turning, Machining, Wielding, Carpentry, Fitting and Foundry for imparting training viz. Plan, deliver and evaluate shop instructions and guide the diploma students in the performance of practical tasks and skill exercises and evaluate their performance in the Workshop. The MMD has been discharging the duties and responsibilities such as providing assistance to faculty in conduct of practicals in Auto Shops Practices (Shop in Automobile Engineering Department) as a supporting staff of the faculty i.e. Lecturer/Senior Lecturer/HOD’s and Driving Practice to the Automobile Students which are quite different from the duties and responsibilities of Workshop Instructor as well as driver. It was submitted that there is no wholesome parity of the process of Workshop Instructor (Polytechnic) with the Post of MMD (Polytechnic) and hence prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

The learned Single Judge on the basis of the pleadings, came to the conclusion that the scope of judicial review in the matters concerning grant of pay scales, its revision and related issues are well defined and the Court should interfere only when the administrative action is palpably unreasonable, unjustified and prejudicial to a section of employees. It was held that the decision as to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, their creation/abolition, and other conditions of service including avenue of promotion and fixation of pay and its revision is in the exclusive domain of the Government and such matters are to be decided by the experts and it is not for the Court to substitute its own opinion. In the cases of parity in pay scales, it has been repeatedly held that the expert job cannot be undertaken by the Court and thus dismissed the writ petition, placing reliance upon