IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T)No. 4227 of 2008. Date of decision: 6.9.2010 Ved Bhushan Gupta. …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P & anr. .... Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No. For the petitioner: Mr.Surender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Sh.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) The petitioner by means of this writ petition has prayed that the respondents be directed to grant pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 since this is the scale which was being paid to the Research Assistants in the Public Works Department in the State of Punjab. In the alternative, it was prayed that he be paid the same scale of pay which has been paid to the Research Officers in the H.P.Public Works Department. 2. In so far as the petitioner’s claim for being equated to the post of Research Officer in the state of Punjab is concerned, the stand of the State-respondents is 2 that in the State of Punjab, the post of Research Officer does not exist in the Public Works Department. There is however, a post of Research Officer in the IPH Department in the State of Punjab. The case of the petitioner was considered by the Anomaly Committee which found that the qualifications prescribed for Research Officer in the IPH Department in Punjab were much higher than those prescribed for these officers in the H.P.PWD. The nature of duties was also found to be different and as such, this claim was rejected. 3. I have heard Sh.Surender Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh.Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. 4. After perusing the entire material on record and after hearing the arguments of Sh.Surender Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any material on record to show that the nature of duties of the post of Research Officer in the H.P.PWD are similar to those of Research Officers in the IPH in the State of Punjab. Even otherwise, by now the law is well settled that no employee has a right to claim parity of pay scales with the employees in different States. In fact, the role of the Court in these matters is very limited. 3 5. In S.C.Chandra vs. State of Jharkhand, (2007) 8 SCC 279, the Apex Court clearly held that it is not the role of the Courts to decide as to whether there should be parity in pay scales or not. Justice Markandey Katju, in his concurring judgement held as follows:- “35. In our opinion fixing pay scales by courts by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work upsets the high constitutional principle of separation of powers between the three organs of the State. Realising this, this Court has in recent years avoided applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, unless there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups (and there too the matter should be sent for examination by an Expert Committee appointed by the Government instead of the Court itself granting higher pay). 36. It is well settled by the Supreme Court that only because the nature of work is the same, irrespective of educational qualification, mode of appointment, experience and other relevant factors, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply vide Govt. of West Bengal vs. Tarun K.Roy (2004) 1 SCC 347.” 6. This matter also came up for consideration in Union of India and others vs. Hiranmoy Sen and others, (2008) 1 SCC 630, in which the Apex Court took the same view. 7. It is apparent that this Court cannot decide the question as to what pay scale should be granted to the petitioner or what should be the post to which his post should be granted parity. This is for a panel of experts to decide. Various factors have to be taken into 4 consideration while fixing the pay scale and as observed by the Apex Court it is an Expert Committee appointed by the Government which should consider this question. 8. In the present case, an Expert Committee known as the Anomaly Committee was appointed by the State Government. This Committee considered and rejected the claim of the petitioner. This Court finds no reason to interfere in the findings of the Expert Committee. 9. The second prayer of Sh.Sharma is that the petitioner should be equated with the Research Officers posted in HIPA. He submits that the Research Officers in HIPA and Revenue Department also only have to be Graduates like in the Public Works Department. He submits that since the qualifications for both posts are the same and at one point of time, all these posts were in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500, the petitioner should be awarded the same scale which has been awarded to the Research Officers in HIPA. 10. This argument is attractive at the first blush. However, on a deeper analysis of the duties and responsibilities of the different Departments, I find that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The duties of the Research Officers in the HP, PWD are only of testing 5 material for the construction of buildings etc. whereas the duties of Research Officers in HIPA are collection, compilation and interpretation of statistical data. Testing of material is totally different from the collection, compilation and interpretation of statistical data. In the first, only objection analysis has to be done whereas in the second, both objective and subjective analysis have to be done. The role of the Research Officer who is required to interpret the statistical data is definitely higher than that of a Research Officer who is only required to test material and submit a report about the quality of the material. The petitioner has not placed on record any other material to show how the nature of his duties is similar to that Research Officer in HIPA or the Revenue Department. 11. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. No orders as to costs. September 6, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge