IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 12504 of 2008 Date of decision: 06.04.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Satish Kumar Thakur & another. .....Petitioners. Versus The State of H.P. & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For petitioner No. 1: Reported to have died. For petitioner No. 2: None, though served. For the respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7(i) to (iii): “7(i) That the act of the respondents in not providing the equal treatment to the applicants, Stastical Assistants of the Health and Family Welfare Department, as has been provided to the Satistical Assistants of Planning Department and , Economics and Satistics Department and others departments, may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary, contrary, unjust, invalid, void-ab initio, unconstitutional and unsustainable in the eyes of law. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant/provide the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 w.e.f. 1-1-1986 to the Satistical Assistants of Health and Family Welfare Department at par with the pay scale of Rs.1800-3200 already provided/granted to the Statistical Assistants of planning department and Economics and Statistics Department etc. and the respondents may further be directed to fix the pay of the applicants accordingly w.e.f. 11-7-1988 and 27-6-1994 respectively onwards alongwith all consequential benefits. (iii) That the respondents may be directed to release the arrears of pay/pension alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... 3. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide paras 1 and 2 of preliminary submissions: “1. That it is very humbly submitted that in all the financial matters including the grant of any particular scale of pay at the relevant point of time, Finance Department in the government is the only competent authority. For the purpose of granting pay scale to any category of employees in the State, the government of Himachal Pradesh has always been following the structure of pay scales of the Government of Punjab since February 1, 1968. In the matter of the 'Statistical Assistants' working in different Departments in the State of H.P., the Government of H.P. had/has revised the pay scales of such category of post on post to post and Department to Department basis strictly on Punjab pattern. As such, the pay scales of the category of 'Statistical Assistants' in the Department of Health & Family Welfare in the State of H.P. have also been revised from time to time strictly on Punjab pattern, as clarified in the matter in detail by the government of H.P. through its Finance Department in the other two Original Applications of the similarly situated persons, vide letter No. Fin(PR) B(7)-13/98-II, dated May 4, 2005, attested photocopy whereof stands placed on record as Annexure R-3/I to the reply for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Tribunal. Hence, the claim of the applicants for a pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 from a retrospective date and period i.e., from January 1, 1986 for whole of the category of 'Statistical Assistants' in the Health & Family Welfare Department and further for themselves w.e.f. July 11, 1988 and June 27, 1994 respectively over and above the Punjab pattern, is not at all sanctioned under the Law and facts on record. Therefore since the State Government employees are governed and being governed by the Punjab pattern of pay scales and further since orders from time to time have been issued by the State of H.P. through its finance Department strictly on Punjab pattern, the applicants have no right to agitate against the orders issued in this behalf from time to time, to their suitability. In view of the foregoing submissions, the plea of any act of the respondents being discriminatory, illegal, arbitrary, contrary, unreasonable, unjustified, void-ab-initio, unconstitutional and unsustainable, is not at all tenable in the eye of Law facts and record. 2. That it is by now a well settled law that the matter of pay fixation and pay parity is a complex matter having its far reaching impact on State Exchequer and the Hon'ble Courts should void giving a declaration for granting a particular scale of pay and compelling the Government to implement the same. The Hon'ble Courts can interfere only when government decision is patently irrational, illegal or discriminatory. ...3... Even in such cases, the Hon'ble Courts can apply restraints and avoid giving directions to the Government to pay a particular scale of pay. It is also well settled Law that equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily Courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commission etc. Further, pay parity cannot also be claimed merely on the basis of identity of designation. It is added that the claim of equal pay for equal work is not a Fundamental Right vested in any employee though it is a Constitutional goal to be achieved by the Government. Fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. In view of the above well-settled Law, the claim of the applicants as filed by them by way of the present OA being devoid of any merit, is not at all sustainable over and above the well-considered decisions of the Government in the matter from time to time issued strictly on the Punjab pattern.” 4. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioners (petitioner No. 1 through LRs) still have any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, they may certainly point out the same before respondents/competent authority by way of appropriate representations alongwith copy of this judgment within one month from today, who shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter in accordance with law within next three months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners (petitioner No. 1 through LRs), if so desired. 5. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 6th April, 2011 (virender)