STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANR.versusTILAK RAJ

                          [2014] 7 S.C.R. 598


A         STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANR.
                                   v.
                              TILAK RAJ
                  (Civil Appeal No. 9124 of 2014)
                          SEPTEMBER 1, 2014
B
         [ANIL R. DAVE AND UDAY UMESH LAUT, JJ.]

        Service Law - Pay - Pay scales - Claim for pay scale as
  paid to persons belonging to higher cadre - Allowed by High
C Court - Propriety - Held: Not proper - High Court should not
  have entertained the petitions where disputed questions of fact
   were required to be examined - Without examining relevant
  evidence regarding exact nature of work, working conditions
  and other relevant factors, normally such exercise should not
D have been carried out by the High Court under its writ
  jurisdiction - Relevant exercise was not carried out by the High
   Court in the instant case.

        Service Law - Pay - Pay scales - Fixation of - Held:
E Should be left to an expert body like Pay Commission or
    other similar body.

         By virtue of the impugned judgments, the State of
    Himachal Pradesh was directed to give higher pay scale
    to the respondents -Laboratory Attendants, who had filed
F   petitions claiming higher pay scale on the ground that in
    the case of Madan Gopal, the persons who. had been
    similarly situated, had been given higher pay scale.

        Allowing the appeals, the Court
        HELD:1.1. The respondents had prayed for pay scale
    which was being given to persons holding a promotional
    post (Laboratory Assistant) by contending that the nature
    of work was similar. However, the posts of Laboratory
                                  598
   STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. TILAK RAJ               599


Attendant and Laboratory Assistant are different and          A
therefore, the respondents could not have been paid pay
scale which was being paid to the persons belonging to
a higher cadre. [Para 21] [604-A-C]

     1.2. The High Court should not have entertained the ·
                                                               8
petitions where disputed questions of fact were required
to be examined. Without examining relevant evidence
regarding exact nature of work, working conditions and
other relevant factors, it is not possible to come to a
conclusion with regard to similarity in the nature of work
done by persons belonging to different cadres and C
normally such exercise should not be carried out by the
High Court under its writ jurisdiction. It is settled law that
the work of fixing pay scale is left to an expert body like
Pay Commission or other similar body. Moreover,
qualifications, experience, etc. are also required to be D
examined before fixing pay scales. Such an exercise was
not carried out in this case by the High Court. [Para 22]
[604-G-H; 605-A-B]

    S. C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand (2007) 8 SCC 279:     E
2007 (9) SCR 130 - relied on.

     Madan Gopal v. State of H.P., C. WP. (T) No. 2346 of
2008; Director General of Police and others v. Mrityunjoy
Sarkar and others AIR 1997 SC 249: 1996 (3) SCR 530 -
referred to.                                              ·F

                    Case Law Reference:
    C.W.P. (T) No.2346 of 2008     referred to   Para 3
    1996 (3) SCR 530               Referred to Para 7         G

    2007 (9) SCR 130               Relied on     Para 22
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
9124 of 2014.
                                                              H.
     600      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014) 7 S.C.R.


A                                 WITH
     C.A. Nos. 9125, 9126, 9127, 9128, 9129, 9131 and 9133-
     9138 of 2014.
  ,.,   From the Judgment and Order dated 07.05.2010 in CWP
B n,No. 1862 of 2010 of the High Court of H.P. at Shimla.
         Pragati Neekhra, Himinder Lal, Vikas Mahajan, Vinod
     Sharma Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni, for the Appellants.
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
           ANIL R. DAVE, J 1. Leave granted.
c
          2. Being aggrieved by the Judgment delivered in
     C.W.P.No.1862 of 2010 and other judgments by the High Court
     of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, these appeals have been filed
     by the State of Himachal Pradesh. Issues involved in all these
     appeals are almost same and therefore, all these appeals have
0
     been heard together.
       3. By virtue of the impugned judgments, the State of
  Himachal Pradesh has been directed to give higher pay scale
  to the respondents -original petitioners, who had filed petitions
E claiming higher pay scale on the ground that in the case of
  Madan Gopal v. State of H.P., C.W.P. (T) No.2346 of 2008,
  the persons who had been similarly situated, had been given
  higher pay scale.
         4. The aforesaid submission was accepted by the High
F    Court and all the petitions filed by the present respondents had
     been allowed mainly on the ground that similarly situated
     persons, namely Madan Gopal and others had been given
     higher pay scale by the High Court.
       5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State
G has submitted that the impugned judgments are not just and
  proper for the reason that the High Court was not properly
  informed about the facts in the above mentioned petitions filed
  before the court and the case of Madan Gopal, on the basis of
  which the High Court had allowed all the petitions.
·H         6. So as to understand the issue involved in these appeals,
   STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. TILAK RAJ                      601
               [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
it is necessary to know the facts involved in the case of Madan        A
Gopal vs. State of H.P.
     7. Civil Suit No.191 of 1986 had been filed in the court of
sub-Judge First Class, Hoshiarpur by Shri Gurdev, a Laboratory
Attendant, making an averment to the effect that the nature of
                                                                       8
work performed by him was similar to that of the work done by
the matriculate Laboratory Attendant and therefore, he should
be paid salary which was being paid to other persons doing
similar work on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' laid
down by this Court in the case of Director General of Police
and others v. Mrityurijoy Sarkar and others, AIR 1997 SC 249.          C

     8. It had been contended in the said suit, viz. Gurdev v.
The State of Punjab, that the plaintiff was a matriculate and
was given pay scale of Rs.75-105, whereas other persons
doing similar work were put in the pay scale of Rs.100-106 (the        D
said pay-scales had been subsequently revised). It was the
case of the plaintiff that though he was a matriculate, he was
given appointment as a Laboratory Attendant in the department
of Industrial Training and Technical Education by the
Government of Punjab. Other Laboratory Attendants were being           E
given pay scale of Rs.100-106, though their qualification and
the qualification of the plaintiff were the same. The case of the
defendant-Government in the said case was that the plaintiff,
though a matriculate, was recruited for a non-matriculate post
and therefore, he was paid less salary than what was being paid        F
to the matriculate Laboratory Attendants.

      9. Ultimately, the said suit had been decree-9 on the ground
that the plaintiff, though a matriculate, was recruited to a non
matriculate post but was doing work which was done by other
matriculate Laboratory Attendants and therefore, on the                G
principle--of_'equal pay for equal work' the plaintiff ought to have
been given pay scale which was given to matriculate Laboratory
Attendants.

     10. First appeal filed against the aforestated judgment           H
    602      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A delivered in Civil Suit No.191 of 1986 had been dismissed and
  even the Second Appeal had also been dismissed on 18th
  December, 1989

         11. On the basis of the above judgment, several Laboratory
8   Attendants had filed petitions and they had also succeeded.
    One such petition was filed by Shri Madan Gopal. His petition,
    CWP(T) No.2346 of 2008 was also allowed, believing that the
    facts of his case and the facts of the plaintiff, who had filed the
    aforestated suit were similar.

C        12. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that
    the facts in the case of Shri Gurdev vs. The State of Punjab
    and the facts involved in the present appeals are quite different.

       13. Shri Gurdev was appointed by the Government of
o Punjab and though he was a matriculate, he was recruited to a
  post which was meant for a non matriculate. Upon examination
  of the facts, the court had come to a conclusion that the nature
  of work done by the said plaintiff and other matriculate
  Laboratory Attendants was same and therefore, Shri Gurdev
E had succeeded in thE~ suit.

       14. It has been further submitted that most of the
  respondents in the instant case were appointed as Laboratory
  Attendants with a qualification of standard 8th pass in the pay
  scale of Rs.750-1350 (revised). There is another post in the
F Education Department of Laboratory Attendant having different
  nature of work in the pay scale of Rs.810-1440 (revised). !n the
  department wherein the respondents are working, there is a
  promotional post of Laboratory Assistant, which carries pay
  scale of Rs.950-1800 (revised).
G
       15. The respondE!nts in the instant case had claimed in the
  High 'court that instead of Rs.750-1350 (revised) pay scale, they
  should be put in the pay scale of Rs.950-1800 (revised), which
  is a pay scale given to Laboratory Assistants, which is a
H promotional post.
   STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. TILAK RAJ                     603
               [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
     16. It is a fact that all the respondents were not matriculate   A
at the time they had been appointed and it is crystal clear that
in the State of Himachal Pradesh post of Laboratory Attendant
and post of Laboratory Assistant are different. Nature of work
done by the persons in these two different cadres is different.
Even qualifications required for appointment to both the posts        B
are different. Qualification required for being appointed to the
post of Laboratory Attendant was passing of Standard eight at
the relevant time and the post of the Laboratory Assistant is a
promotional post requiring. higher educational qualification.

      17. In the circumstances, it has been submitted by the          C
learned counsel that the respondents are not entitled to higher
scale of pay and the High Court was in error while allowing their
petitions on the ground that in the case of Madan Gopal vs.
State of H.P. the petitioner of the said case· had been given
higher pay scale.                                      ·              D

     18. The learned counsel has successfully distinguished
facts in the case of Shri Gurde~ vs. The State of Punjab on the
basis of which the case of Madan Gopal vs. State of H.P. had
been decided. In the circumstances, the impugned judgments            E
should be quashed and set aside and the appeals should be
allowed.

     19. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents has supported the reasons given by the High
Court in the impugned judgments and has submitted that the            F
respondents have been rightly awarded higher pay scale by the
High Court and therefore, the appeals should ,be dismissed ..

     20. We have heard the learned counsel and have also
perused the judgment delivered in Civil Suit No.191 of 1986           G
by the sub Judge First Class; Hoshiarpur and the impugned
judgments.
      21. In our opinion, facts in the present cases are absolutely
different. The qualifications of the respondents before this Court    H
    604     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A and Shri Gurdev, who had filed the aforestated suit are different.
  It is clear that the respondents had prayed for pay scale which
  was being given to persons holding a promotional post by
  contending that the nature of work was similar. It is pertinent to
  note that pay scale of Laboratory Attendants in different
B departments are different and the qualifications of the
  respondents are also different. As Laboratory Attendants, the
  respondents were in the pay scale of Rs.750-1350 (revised)
  whereas upon getting promotion to the post of Laboratory
  Assistant, they would be getting pay scale of Rs.950-1800
c (revised). It is, thus, clear that the posts of Laboratory Attendant
  and Laboratory As.sistant are different and therefore, the
  respondents could not have been paid pay scale which was
  being paid to the peirsons belonging to a higher cadre.

          22. It is also clear that disputed question of facts were
D   involved in the petitions because according to the respondents,
    who were petitioners before the High Court, nature of work done
    by. them was similar to that of the work of other Laboratory
    Attendants or Laboratory Assistants. Without looking at the
    nature of work done by persons working in different cadres in
E   different departments, one cannot jump to a conclusion that all
    these persons were doing similar type of work simply because
    in a civil suit, one particular person had succeeded after
    adducing evidence. There is nothing on record to show that the
    High Court had examined the nature of work done by the
F   respondents and other persons who were getting higher pay
    scale. The High Court had also not considered the fact that
    qualifications required for appointment to both the posts were
    different. In our opinion, the High Court should not have
    entertained all these petitions where disputed questions of fact
G   were required to be examined. Without examining relevant
    evidence regarding 1axact nature of work, working conditions
    and other relevant factors, it is not possible to come to a
    conclusion with regard to "similarity in the nature of work done
    by persons belonging to different cadres and normally such
H   exercise sho\Jld not be carried out by the High Court under its
   STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. TlLAK RAJ                         605
               [ANll:_ R. DAVE; J.]
writ jurisdiction. It is settled law that the work of fixing pay scale   A
is left to an expert body like Pay Commission or other similar
body, as held by this Court in several cases, including the case
of S. C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand (2007) 8 SCC 279.
Moreover, qualifications, experience, etc. are also required to
be examined before fixing pay scales. Such an exercise was               B
not carried out in this case by the High Court.

      23. For the aforestated reasons, we are of the view that
the respondents could not have been awarded higher pay scale
simply because Shri Gurdev had succeeded in a civil suit filed
by him. The impugned judgments, therefore, deserve to be                 C
quashed and set aside. We, however, clarify that if the
respondents are aggrieved by the salary which is paid to them,
it is open to them to approach an appropriate forum for
redressal of their grievances.
                                                                         D
     24 The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                  Appeals allowed.