1. Petition seeking pay parity and promotional avenues for Civil Nazirs in Consumer Commission with those in Subordinate Courts. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3187
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ
Usha Devi – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP – Respondent
CWPOA/5489/2019
Important Points
Courts can interfere in executive pay fixation if the decision is unreasonable or arbitrary. When qualifications, duties, and responsibilities are identical between posts across different departments, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" justifies granting pay parity.
Subject
Service Law - Pay Scale and Parity
Act Referred
Constitution of India: Art.227, Art.14, Art.16, Art.21, Art.39(d)
Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts Employees (Pay Allowances and other condition of Service) Act, 2005: S.4
HP Court’s Act, 1976: S.18
Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Civil Nazir, Class-III (Non-Gazetted), Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2010
Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts’ Staff (Recruitment, Promotion and conditions of Service) Rules, 2012
Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts Employees (Pay Allowances and other condition of Service) Act, 2005: S.4
HP Court’s Act, 1976: S.18
Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Civil Nazir, Class-III (Non-Gazetted), Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2010
Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts’ Staff (Recruitment, Promotion and conditions of Service) Rules, 2012
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) - Principle of “equal pay for equal work” - The principle is not a mere slogan but a constitutional goal capable of being attained through constitutional remedies and must be read with Articles 14 and 16. (Paras 25, 31)
(B) Fixation of pay and pay parity - Primarily an executive function; courts should not ordinarily interfere with administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation, however, the court should interfere when a decision is unreasonable, unjust, prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors. (Paras 22, 28, 30)
(C) Judicial Review in Pay Fixation - While the scope is limited, courts can intervene in cases where there is no dispute regarding the qualifications, duties, and responsibilities of persons holding identical posts or ranks, but they are treated differently merely because they belong to different departments. (Para 32)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were appointed to the post of Civil Nazir on a contract basis in a state commission. Initially, the post was granted a certain grade pay, but a subsequent notification reduced the grade pay without providing any reason. The petitioners sought parity in pay scales and promotional avenues, comparing their position to counterparts in the subordinate judiciary, asserting that the method of recruitment, nature of duties, responsibilities, and qualifications were identical.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondents failed to provide any valid reason for reducing the grade pay via the subsequent notification. Since the qualifications, functions, and responsibilities of the petitioners were same and akin to those of the Civil Nazirs in the subordinate judiciary, the action of paying them a lower scale was unreasonable and discriminatory.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to pay parity with their counterparts in the subordinate judiciary based on the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and whether the reduction of their grade pay without assigned reasons was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Ratio Decidendi: While pay fixation is an executive function, the court can exercise judicial review if the administrative decision is unreasonable. Where there is a wholesale identity between two groups in terms of qualifications, recruitment, and nature of duties, the denial of pay parity is unjustifiable, especially when a previously granted higher pay scale is reduced without justification.
Result: Petition allowed. The state is directed to fix the pay scale of the post of Civil Nazir in the commission at par with the subordinate judiciary, with arrears payable for three years prior to the date of filing the petition.
(B) Fixation of pay and pay parity - Primarily an executive function; courts should not ordinarily interfere with administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation, however, the court should interfere when a decision is unreasonable, unjust, prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors. (Paras 22, 28, 30)
(C) Judicial Review in Pay Fixation - While the scope is limited, courts can intervene in cases where there is no dispute regarding the qualifications, duties, and responsibilities of persons holding identical posts or ranks, but they are treated differently merely because they belong to different departments. (Para 32)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were appointed to the post of Civil Nazir on a contract basis in a state commission. Initially, the post was granted a certain grade pay, but a subsequent notification reduced the grade pay without providing any reason. The petitioners sought parity in pay scales and promotional avenues, comparing their position to counterparts in the subordinate judiciary, asserting that the method of recruitment, nature of duties, responsibilities, and qualifications were identical.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondents failed to provide any valid reason for reducing the grade pay via the subsequent notification. Since the qualifications, functions, and responsibilities of the petitioners were same and akin to those of the Civil Nazirs in the subordinate judiciary, the action of paying them a lower scale was unreasonable and discriminatory.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to pay parity with their counterparts in the subordinate judiciary based on the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and whether the reduction of their grade pay without assigned reasons was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Ratio Decidendi: While pay fixation is an executive function, the court can exercise judicial review if the administrative decision is unreasonable. Where there is a wholesale identity between two groups in terms of qualifications, recruitment, and nature of duties, the denial of pay parity is unjustifiable, especially when a previously granted higher pay scale is reduced without justification.
Result: Petition allowed. The state is directed to fix the pay scale of the post of Civil Nazir in the commission at par with the subordinate judiciary, with arrears payable for three years prior to the date of filing the petition.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- service law
- administrative law
-
practice and procedure
- writ jurisdiction (Para 1)
Petitioner Advocates:Chander Narayan Singh ,Respondent Advocate: AG Rakesh Chauhan Rajesh Kumar
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners claimed equal pay for equal work based on identical duties; State argued different establishments and executive discretion. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
3. Petition allowed; directed to fix pay scale at par with Subordinate Courts; arrears limited to three years prior to filing. (Para 41 , 42 )
4. When can the principle of equal pay for equal work be invoked?
It can be invoked when there is complete identity in duties, responsibilities, qualifications, and nature of work between two groups, and any discrimination violates Articles 14 and 39(d). (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 31 , 34 )
5. Under what circumstances can courts interfere with executive pay fixation?
Courts can interfere when the decision is unreasonable, unjust, prejudicial to a section of employees, or taken in ignorance of material factors. (Para 22 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 34 )
6. Who bears the burden of proof in a claim for pay parity?
The employee seeking parity must prove and establish that they have been discriminated against by producing material showing identity of duties and qualifications. (Para 33 )
7. Does an unexplained reduction in pay scale after initial grant justify judicial intervention?
Yes, when the State reduces the pay scale without assigning reasons, especially when duties are identical to comparator posts, the court may find the action unreasonable. (Para 23 , 24 , 29 , 37 , 39 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
2026:HHC:21061
CWPOA No.5489 of 2019
Reserved on: 20.05.2026
Decided on: 02.06.2026
Uploaded on: 02.06.2026
Usha Devi and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Ltal Bhardwaj, Judge
For the petitioners: Mr. Chandranarayana Singh, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent Nos.1 to 3-State.
Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 to 19.
Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge
1. The petitioners by way of present petition have prayed for the following substantive reliefs:
“i) That the letters/orders dated 12.9.2018, 9.6.2018 and 1.10.2018 Annexure A-13 (Colly) be quashed and set aside for all intents and purposes.
ii) That issue appropriate directions to the respondents/Competent Authorities to fix the pay scales for the post of Civil Nazir in respondent No.3 similar to the pay scales of Civil Nazir as has been fixed in the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts/Judiciary.
iii) Issue appropriate directions to the respondents to carry necessary amendment in the R & P Rules, provide promotion avenues to the applicants/Civil Nazir’s as are available to their counterparts in the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts/Judiciary with retrospective effect with all consequential benefits within a time bound manner.
iv) That the respondents may be directed to accordingly work out the arrears of pay in favour of the applicants and pay the same to the applicants alongwith 9% p.a.
v) That the pay of the applicants accordingly be fixed with all consequential benefits.”
2. The facts as emergeo from the pleadings are that the petitioners were appointed to the post of Civil Nazir, on contract basis with respondent No.3-Commission. Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 were appointed as Civil Nazir, on contract basis, vide office order(s) dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure A-1), 03.07.2009 (Annexures A-2 to A-4) and 30.09.2010 (Annexure A-6), respectively. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 were appointed on fixed contractual amount of Rs.7500/- per month and petitioner No.5 was appointed on consolidated fixed contractual amount @Rs.14,100/- per month, which was in the pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+3800 Grade Pay.
3. Later on, services of the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 were regularized vide office order dated 27.05.2015 (Annexure A-5). As per office order dated 27.04.2016 (Annexure A-7), the services of petitioner No.5 were regularized after completion of 5 years of continuous service as on 31.03.2016 in the pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+3200/- Grade Pay, in Pay Band-3 with initial start of Rs.13,500/- per month (Rs.10300+3200 Grade Pay) plus allowances at the rates admissible subject to the condition laid down in the rules and orders governing the grant of such allowances in force from time to time.
4. At the time of offering appointment to petitioner No.5 as Civil Nazir, on contract basis, vide office order dated 30.09.2010 (Annexure A-6), the Rules called as the “Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Civil Nazir, Class-III (Non-Gazetted), Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2010” (hereinafter to be referred as “R & P Rules”) notified on 14.05.2010 for the post of Civil Nazir, were in vogue. As per these Rules, the pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+3800 Grade Pay was fixed for the post of Civil Nazir.
5. After issuance of the aforesaid Notification dated 14.05.2010, another Notification was issued on 09.12.2011 (Annexure R-3) amending the said Notification. By way of the amendment, the existing provision against Column No.4 relating to the pay scale for the post of Civil Nazir, which had earlier been prescribed as Rs.10300-34800+3800 Grade Pay was substituted with Rs.10300-34800+3200 Grade Pay. Furthermore, the emoluments payable to contractual employees were prescribed in accordance with the details provided in Column 15A. Thereafter, Notification dated 27.09.2012 (Annexure A-9) was a
