Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.9124  OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.404 of 2011)

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …... Appellants.

Versus

Tilak Raj ….. Respondent

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.9125 OF 2014, (Arising out of SLP(C) No.407 of 2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.9126 OF 2014, (Arising out of SLP(C) No.4106 of 2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.9127 OF 2014, (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5413 of 2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.9128 OF 2014, (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5416 of 2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.9129 OF 2014, (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5419 of 2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.9131 OF 2014, (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5421 of 2011)

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9133-9138  OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.9761-9766 of 2011)

Page 2

2

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J

1 Leave granted.

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 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 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 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.

Page 3

3

5 The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State 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.

6 So as to understand the issue involved in these appeals, it is necessary  

to know the facts involved in the case of Madan 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 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.  Mrityunjoy Sarkar and  

others,  AIR 1997 SC 249.  

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

Page 4

4

of Rs.75-105, whereas other persons doing similar work were put in  

the  pay  scale  of  Rs.100-106  (the  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 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  

to the matriculate Laboratory Attendants.

9 Ultimately,  the  said  suit  had been decreed 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 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 delivered in Civil  

Suit No.191 of 1986 had been dismissed and even the Second Appeal

Page 5

5

had also been dismissed on 18th December, 1989

11 On the basis of the above judgment, several Laboratory 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.

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 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 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  Education  Department  of  

Laboratory Attendant having different nature of work in the pay scale

Page 6

6

of Rs.810-1440 (revised). In the department wherein the respondents  

are  working,  there  is  a  promotional  post  of  Laboratory  Assistant,  

which carries pay scale of Rs.950-1800 (revised).

15 The respondents 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 promotional post.

16 It is a fact that all the respondents were not matriculate 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 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 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

Page 7

7

that in the case of  Madan Gopal vs. State of H.P. the petitioner of the  

said case had been given higher pay scale.

18 The learned counsel has successfully distinguished facts in the case of  

Shri Gurdev 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 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 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 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 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

Page 8

8

work was similar.  It is pertinent to note that pay scale of Laboratory  

Attendants  in  different  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 (revised).  

It is, thus, clear that the posts of Laboratory Attendant and Laboratory  

Assistant are different and therefore, the respondents could not have  

been paid pay scale which was being paid to the persons belonging to  

a higher cadre.

22 It is also clear that disputed question of facts were 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 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 respondents

Page 9

9

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 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  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,  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 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  quashed  and  set  aside.   We,

Page 10

10

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.

24 The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.

       …...................................J         (ANIL R. DAVE)

…..................................J             (UDAY UMESH LALIT)

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 1, 2014.