D.K. Sharma and Ors vs HP State Pollution Control Board

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Pay Parity - Revision of pay scales - Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) - Denial of four-tier pay scales to employees of a statutory Board despite historical parity with State Government counterparts - While fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is an executive function and judicial review is limited, courts should interfere with administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation when they are found to be unreasonable, unjust, and prejudicial to a section of employees, or taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors. (Paras 15 and 16)

(B) Parity in Pay - Where an employer has historically equated the pay scales of its employees with those of the State Government and maintained such parity over time, any subsequent correction of anomalies or extension of revised pay scales to the State employees should automatically be extended to the corresponding categories of employees in the Board to maintain the established parity. (Paras 15 and 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, serving as engineers in a statutory board, sought pay parity with their counterparts in the state government. Since its inception, the board had adopted state government pay scales for its employees. However, following a revision of pay scales and the introduction of a four-tier pay scale (granted upon completion of 4, 9, and 14 years of service) for state engineers, the board denied the same tiered benefits to the petitioners. The board rejected the petitioners' claims without assigning any reasons, leading the petitioners to challenge these decisions.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the board's refusal to extend the tiered pay benefits was arbitrary and irrational. Given that the board had consistently followed state pay patterns since 1974 and provided no justification or reasons for deviating from this practice in the present case, the denial was deemed unreasonable. The court also noted that the board was not facing financial constraints that would justify such a denial.

Issues: Whether the board could arbitrarily deny tiered pay scales to its engineers when it had historically followed state government pay patterns for the same categories of posts and provided no reason for the deviation.

Ratio Decidendi: Administrative decisions on pay parity are subject to judicial review if they are unreasonable or unjust. If a board has established a practice of maintaining pay parity with state government employees, it cannot unilaterally stop extending such parity—specifically regarding anomaly corrections or tiered pay revisions—without assigning valid reasons.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned orders quashed; petitioners held entitled to revised pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996 on completion of 4, 9 and 14 years of service including service as Assistant Engineer with all consequential benefits.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Engineers of a statutory Board sought parity in revised pay scales with State Government counterpart engineers after denial of four-tier time scales under a pay revision. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )

2. Engineers asserted entitlement by reason of historically maintained parity; the Board contended pay fixation is employer's discretion and other benefits had already been granted. (Para 8 , 11 , 12 , 13 )

3. Petition allowed; impugned refusals quashed; Board directed to extend parity of revised pay scales with consequential benefits, arrears within three months, interest on delay. (Para 19 )

4. When may courts interfere with administrative decisions on pay fixation and pay parity?

Courts have limited review, but must interfere when a pay-fixation decision is unreasonable, unjust, prejudicial to a section of employees, or made in ignorance of material factors. (Para 15 )

5. If a Board previously extended State Government pay scales to its employees, must later higher scales granted to State counterparts be automatically extended?

Yes; where the same revised pay scale was earlier extended, any later correction of anomaly or higher scale granted to Government counterparts must also be extended to preserve parity. (Para 15 , 16 )

6. Can rejection of a pay-parity claim be sustained without assigned reasons?

No; denial is unsustainable when the employer had consistently maintained parity and rejects the claim without giving reasons. (Para 14 , 17 )

7. Can financial constraints justify withholding revised pay scales from one class of employees?

No; financial difficulty is not a valid ground to deny pay parity, especially when no financial strain is shown. (Para 17 )

8. Does prior receipt of other benefits bar a claim to the same pay scales as counterparts?

No; benefits already granted may be adjusted while granting the parity, but they do not extinguish the entitlement. (Para 18 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWPOA No.3088 of 2019

Decided on: 25.05.2026

D.K. Sharma and others H ...Petitioners Versus H.P. State Pollution Control Board and others ...Respondents

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?

Yes

For the petitioners: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Virender Verma, Mr. Om Pal and Mr. Mohit Sharma, Advocates.

For the respondents: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Surya

h Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for

respondents No.2 & 3.

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

(Oral)

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

“(i) That the decision of respondent Board reflected in Annexure P-8 dated 28.4.2005 and 2.12.2009, Annexure P-13 may kindly be quashed, whereby the petitioners have been denied pay parity at par with their counterparts in the State government.

(ii) That respondent Board may be directed to treat the petitioners at par with their counterparts i.e. Assistant Engineers and Executive Engineers in the State of HP in the matter of revision of pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and consequently they may be held entitled to revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1996 on completion of 4,9 and 14 years of service as Assistant Engineer and 14 years of service as Assistant Engineers/ Executive Engineers, as allowed to their counterparts in State of HP, with effect from 1.1.1996 with all consequential bene”

2. The facts, as emerge from the pleadings, are that respondent No.1-Board was constituted, vide Notification dated 21.1o2.1974 and from its inception, it has been followCing the pay scales as revised from time to time, applicable to the corresponding categories of ofÏcers/employees of State of H.P. Pursuant to the revision of pay scales in the State of Himachal Pradesh w.e.f. 01.01.1978, the pay scales of Assistant Environmental Engineers (for short ‘AEEs’) were revised to Rs.940-1850/-, at par with the category of Assistant Engineers in the State of Himachal Pradesh.

3. AEEs were granted the time scale of Rs.2200- 4000/-, w.e.f. 01.01.1986, as a result of revision of pay scale of the corresponding category of Assistant Engineers in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Later on, they were granted higher scale of Rs.3000-4500/- on completion of 8 years of service and Rs. 3700-5300/- on completion of 18 years of service. Vide Notification dated 20.01.1998 (Annexure P-2), the pay scales of the employees of thHe State of Himachal Pradesh were revised w.e.f. 01.01.1996. However, the revision of pay scale was granted on scale basis and not on the basis of the category/nomenclature of the post.

4. The State tof H.P. issued notification on 01.09.1998 (Annexure P-3), to notify the HP Civil Services (Revised Pay) 1st Amendment Rules, 1998, which were made effective from 01.01.1996. As per the amendment carried out in part-g of Rule 3 of 1998 Rules, the pay scales hindicated in the notification were made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.1996 category wise. Under the professional categories, the category of Assistant Engineers was granted four tier pay scales i.e. the initial time scale and higher scales on completion of 4,9 and 14 years of service in the same post. The pay scale of Assistant Engineers, which was Rs.2200-4000/-(entry scale) was revised to Rs.7880- 13500/- (with a start of Rs.8000/-) (entry scale). The pay scale of Rs.3000-4500/- which was given after 8 years services, was revised to Rs.10025-15100/- (after 4 years regular service in the entry scale). Pay scale of Rs.3700- 5300/- which was granted after 18 years of service, was revised to Rs.12000-15500/- (after 9 years regular service in the entry scale) and pay scale of RsH.14300-18150/- was granted after 14 years regular service in the entry scale. The category of Executive Engineers was allowed higher pay scale/time scale on completion of 14 years of regular service, including ser

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2922

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ
D.K. Sharma and Ors – Appellant
Versus
HP State Pollution Control Board – Respondent
CWPOA/3088/2019

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. When may courts interfere with administrative decisions on pay fixation and pay parity?

5. If a Board previously extended State Government pay scales to its employees, must later higher scales granted to State counterparts be automatically extended?

6. Can rejection of a pay-parity claim be sustained without assigned reasons?

7. Can financial constraints justify withholding revised pay scales from one class of employees?

8. Does prior receipt of other benefits bar a claim to the same pay scales as counterparts?

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2922

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JIYA LAL BHARDWAJD.K. Sharma and Ors – AppellantVersusHP State Pollution Control Board – RespondentCWPOA/3088/2019

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. When may courts interfere with administrative decisions on pay fixation and pay parity?

5. If a Board previously extended State Government pay scales to its employees, must later higher scales granted to State counterparts be automatically extended?

6. Can rejection of a pay-parity claim be sustained without assigned reasons?

7. Can financial constraints justify withholding revised pay scales from one class of employees?

8. Does prior receipt of other benefits bar a claim to the same pay scales as counterparts?

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ
D.K. Sharma and Ors – Appellant
Versus
HP State Pollution Control Board – Respondent
CWPOA/3088/2019