Himachal Pradesh High Court

Himachal Pradesh Polytechnic Teachers vs State Of H.P. & Others on 21 August, 2025

2025:HHC:28289

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWPOA No.1035 of 2019 a/w

CWP No.501 of 2022 Reserved on: 06.08.2025 Date of Decision: 21.08.2025

1. CWPOA No.1035 of 2019 Himachal Pradesh Polytechnic Teachers Welfare Association & another ...Petitioners

r to Versus

State of H.P. & others ...Respondents

2. CWP No.501 of 2022 Sudhir Dhiman & others ...Petitioners

Versus

State of H.P. & others ...Respondents

Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? Yes

For the petitioners: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

For the petitioners: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Vishali Lakhanpal, Advocate.

For the respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

2 2025:HHC:28289

Satyen Vaidya, Judge Both these petitions have been heard and are being

decided together as common questions of law and facts are

involved.

2. For convenience and clarity, the facts of CWPOA

No.1035 of 2019 are being taken into consideration.

3. The instant petition has been filed for the following

reliefs: r"(i) That the decision as reflected in Annexure

P-15 dated 20.8.2013 dis-allowing the four tier pay scales to the teaching faculty of Government Polytechnics may kindly be quashed and set aside;

(ii) That the respondents may be directed to allow to the members of petitioner Association the pay scales as per AICTE recommendations, as

recommended by 5th Punjab Pay Commission, or at

least four tier pay scales as allowed to their counterparts in State of Punjab, which are lower than as recommended by 5th Punjab Pay

Commission, from due date, with all consequential benefits."

4. Petitioner No.1 is an Association formed by teaching

faculty members of Government Polytechnics in the State of

Himachal Pradesh. The Lecturers/Senior Lecturers/Head of

Department/Principals in the Government Polytechnics in the

3 2025:HHC:28289

State of Himachal Pradesh are the members of petitioner No.1-

Association.

5. The petitioners herein are seeking to espouse the

cause of The Lecturers/Senior Lecturers/Head of

Department/Principals in the Government Polytechnics in the

State of Himachal Pradesh, by seeking reliefs, as noticed above.

6. The Polytechnic Lecturers in the State of Himachal

Pradesh were placed in the pay scale of Rs.7880-13500 on

revision of pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996.

7. The State of Himachal Pradesh notified the H.P. Civil

Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 effective from 01.01.2006 on

Punjab Pay pattern. As per "Fitment Table-19", for pre-revised pay

scale of Rs.7880-13500, the pay band of Rs.15600-39100 plus

Rs.5400 Grade Pay was allowed.

8. The case, as set up by the petitioners is that the 5th

Punjab Pay Commission vide para 5.51 had made specific

recommendation with respect to the teaching faculty in the

Department of Technical Education, on the basis of

recommendations made by All India Council of Technical

Education (AICTE). The State of Punjab implemented the

aforesaid recommendations qua teaching faculty of Engineering

Colleges in Technical Education & Industrial Training Department

of State of Punjab. Following the Punjab Pay pattern, the State of

4 2025:HHC:28289

Himachal Pradesh also allowed to the teaching faculty in

Engineering Colleges pay scales as per AICTE

recommendations.

9. The teaching faculty of Government Polytechnics

was not allowed the benefit of pay scales as recommended by

AICTE and to that extent the recommendation of 5th Punjab Pay

Commission was not followed by the State of Punjab. Instead, the

State of Punjab allowed the benefits of Dynamic Assured Career

Progression Scheme (DACPS) to the category of Lecturers in

Department of Technical Education by adding such category to

the Schedule attached to the Punjab Civil Services (Dynamic

Assured Career Progression) Rules, 2011

10. It is also the case of the petitioners that though the

four-tier pay scales under DACPS was carrying lesser financial

liability as compared to the pay scales recommended by AICTE,

yet even this benefit has not been made available to the

petitioners.

11. It is also asserted that in the State of Himachal

Pradesh, Assured Career Progression Scheme was introduced by

allowing four-tier pay scales to 8 specific services vide notification

dated 01.01.1998. However, as a result of revision of pay scales,

vide letter dated 31.08.2009, it was decided that the aforesaid

four-tier scales would not be admissible after 26.08.2009 till

5 2025:HHC:28289

further orders. After the State of Punjab followed four-tier pay

scales by way of DACPS to 12 categories, the State of Himachal

Pradesh allowed such scales to 8 categories only vide letter

dated 09.08.2012

12. The grievance of the petitioner is that not only have

they been divested of the benefit of pay scales recommended by

AICTE, they have not even been allowed the benefit of DACPS.

The petitioners have submitted that as against 9 services granted

four-tier scales in Punjab comparable to the corresponding

services in H.P, four-tier scales have been allowed to 8

identifiable services in H.P. The petitioners have quoted the

example whereby following the Punjab pattern, H.P. Forest

Service has been allowed four-tier pay scales w.e.f. 01.09.2013

on the analogy of their counterparts in Punjab.

13. The petitioners have further contended that though,

the matter regarding allowing four-tier pay scales to the Lecturers

in Polytechnic along with the other services/posts i.e. State Forest

Service, Agriculture Service and Horticulture Service was

submitted for consideration of Council of Ministers vide

memorandum dated 12.08.2013, but the Cabinet allowed the

benefit of four-tier pay scales in favour of State Forest Service

and same was disallowed for other categories, including the

Lecturers in Polytechnics.

6 2025:HHC:28289

14. The petitioners have further alleged that the State of

Himachal Pradesh has subjected the teaching faculty of

Government Polytechnics in the State to hostile discrimination in

the matter of revision of pay scales. Neither the pay scales as

recommended by Punjab Pay Commission have been allowed to

lecturers in Government Polytechnics nor have they been allowed

lesser benefit of DACPS.

15.

It is contended that the State of Himachal Pradesh

has been following Punjab pay pattern till date. The respondent-

State, as per the petitioners, cannot be allowed to deny to the

isolated category of teaching faculty of Government Polytechnics,

either the recommendations of Punjab Pay Commission or the

pay scales allowed to their counterparts by Punjab Government in

deviation and dilution to the recommendations of Punjab Pay

Commission.

16. Further contention of the petitioners is that the

respondents while rejecting the case of the petitioners for grant of

DACPS have assumed that no such recommendation was made

by Punjab Pay Commission, which clearly was erroneous. The

Punjab Pay Commission had recommenced pay scales as

recommended by AICTE and on such recommendation not only

the State of Punjab, but the State of Himachal Pradesh also

allowed the AICTE recommended scales to the teaching faculty of

7 2025:HHC:28289

Engineering Colleges. In the case of teaching faculty of

Government Polytechnics, the Punjab Government did not follow

the recommendations of Punjab Pay Commission. In their case,

the Punjab Government allowed them DACPS in deviation and

dilution to the AICTE recommendations. The benefits under the

four-tier pay sales are less lucrative than admissible under

AICTE.

17.

As per petitioners, while putting up case for

consideration of Council of Ministers vide memorandum dated

12.08.2013, the case of the petitioners' Association was treated at

par with agriculture services and horticulture services of the State.

Such act of the respondents has also been challenged on the

ground that the case of the petitioners could not be compared

with agriculture services and horticulture services of the State

because in the case of the petitioners, the Punjab Pay

Commission had already recommended pay scales as per AICTE

recommendations for reasons of accreditation with the AICTE and

in the interest of national uniformity.

18. The aspect of prospective financial implications, by

allowing the category of the petitioners along with horticulture and

agriculture services in the State the benefit of four-tier pay scales,

was also placed before the Council of Ministers for its

consideration. According to the petitioners, such burden in the

8 2025:HHC:28289

case of the categories of Lecturers in Government Polytechnics

would not be more than Rs70.00 lacs per annum.

19. Similarly, the petitioners have also challenged

another anomaly pointed out in the memorandum placed before

the Council of Ministers, according to which the grant of four-tier

pay scale to the category of Lecturers in Polytechnics after

completion of 9 years would place them above the scale of

20. to Deputy Commissioners resulting into hierarchal imbalance.

The petition is contested by the respondents. Reply

has been filed by respondent No.2 stating inter alia that though

the State of Himachal Pradesh takes into consideration Punjab

pattern of pay scales based on the recommendations of the

Punjab Pay Commission, yet while examining the pay scale in the

State, the staffing pattern, Recruitment and Promotion Rules,

method of recruitment, prescribed educational qualifications,

geographical and traditional/territorial conditions, natural and

financial resources which are State specific are taken into

consideration. The State Government of Himachal Pradesh

implements these pay scales in respect of its employees with the

approval of competent authority after detailed examination at

various levels by framing statutory rules under Article 309 of the

Constitution of India. The State Government decides its pay

scales as a service condition prescribed in the Recruitment and

9 2025:HHC:28289

Promotion Rules notified under Article 309 of the Constitution of

India. Similarly, the pay scales are allowed/revised from time to

time under the H.P. Civil Services Pay Rules framed/notified by

the State Government.

21. Thus, the stand of the respondents is that though, it

considers Punjab Pay pattern recommended by Punjab Pay

Commission, but it is not bound to follow the same in entirety.

The final call is taken by the State Government as to which of the

recommendation of the Punjab Pay Commission, as followed by

the State of Punjab, has to be followed in the State of Himachal

Pradesh and to what extent.

22. With respect to controversy in hand, it has been

submitted that the Punjab Government had allowed re-revision of

pay structure/grade pays in respect of various categories in

different departments from different dates i.e. 1.10.2011,

01.11.2011 and 01.12.2011. These orders were based on the

recommendations of cabinet sub-committee. The Punjab

Government had re-revised the pay scale of Punjab Forest

Services vide letter dated 05.10.2011 w.e.f. 01.10.2011 on the

basis of recommendation of the 5th Punjab Pay Commission

without giving any retrospective effect and the application of four-

tier pay scale to the Lecturers of Polytechnics in Punjab had been

10 2025:HHC:28289

allowed vide notification dated 21.11.2011 again on the

recommendation of cabinet sub-committee.

23. It is further the case of respondents that normally the

general revision of pay scales takes place after a span of 10

years. In order to allow re-revision during the intervening period,

the Government, in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to

Article 309 of the Constitution of India, has framed the Himachal

r to Pradesh Civil Services (Category/Post-wise Revised Pay) Rules, 2012

vide notification dated 24.09.2012. The State Government of

Himachal Pradesh had not granted the DACPS to any of the

categories of its employees.

24. The respondents have admitted that the case of the

Lecturers in Government Polytechnics was placed before the

Council of Ministers with full facts for consideration in its meeting

held on 21.08.2013 and the Council of Ministers had approved

the grant of four-tier pay scale only to the Forest Services,

keeping in view the recommendation of 5th Punjab Pay

Commission, and not to the other who were granted the four-tier

pay scale on the decision of the cabinet subcommittee in the

State of Punjab.

25. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

have also perused the record carefully.

11 2025:HHC:28289

26. The question that arises for determination is whether

the petitioners have any vested right of claiming a particular scale

of pay only on the basis of grant of such pay scale to similarly

situated employees in the State of Punjab by the Government of

that State.

27. In State of Himachal Pradesh vs. P.D Attri &

others, (1999) 3 SCC 217, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as

under:

r"5. to The case of the respondents is not based on any Constitutional or any other legal provisions

when they claim parity with the posts similarly designated in the Punjab & Haryana High Court and their pay-scales from the same date. They do

not allege any violation of any Constitutional provision or any other provision of law. They say it is so because of "accepted policy and common

practice" which according to them are undisputed.

We do not think we can import such vague principles while interpreting the provisions of law.

India is a union of States. Each State has its own individualistic way of governance under the Constitution. One State is not bound to follow the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of the other State or if it had adopted the same rules and regulations, it is not bound to follow every change brought in the rules and regulations in the other State. The question then arises before us is if the State of Himachal Pradesh has to follow every change brought in the States of

12 2025:HHC:28289

Punjab & Haryana in regard to the rules and regulations applicable to the employees in the States of Punjab & Haryana. The answer has to

.

be in negative. No argument is needed for that as

anyone having basic knowledge of the Constitution would not argue otherwise. True, the

State as per "policy and practice" had been adopting the same pay-scales for the employees of the High Court as sanctioned from time to time

for the employees of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and it may even now follow to grant pay- scales but is certainly not bound to follow. No law

commands it to do so.

6. The State of Punjab was reorganized into States of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, to begin with, was a Union Territory and was given the status of full statehood in 1970.

Since employees of the composite States of Punjab were taken in various Departments of the

State of Himachal Pradesh in order to safeguard the seniority, pay-scales etc., the State of

Himachal Pradesh followed the Punjab pattern of pay-scales. After attaining the status of full

statehood, High Court of Himachal Pradesh formulated its own rules and regulations for its employees. It adopted the pattern of Punjab & Haryana High Court rules of their employees. When Punjab & Haryana High Court gave effect to certain portion of its Rules from 25.9.1985 by notification dated 23.1.1986 as a result of which redesignation of the posts of Senior Translators and Junior Translators were equated to the posts in Punjab Civil Secretariat, the Himachal Pradesh

13 2025:HHC:28289

High Court similar effect was given to in its rules for its employees. When the Punjab & Haryana High Court gave effect to those rules from

23.1.1975, the State Government did not agree to

the recommendations of the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court to follow the same

suit. It is true that till now, Himachal Pradesh High Court has been following the rules applicable to the employees of the Punjab & Haryana High

Court and it may go on following those rules as may be amended by the Punjab & Haryana High Court from time to time, but certainly it is not

bound to so follow. No law commands the State

Government to follow the rules applicable to the employees of the Punjab & Haryana High Court to the employees of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. That being the position, it is not necessary

for us to examine different qualifications for appointment to the posts of Senior Translators

and Junior Translators that may exist between Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Himachal

Pradesh High Court and also as to the mode of their recruitment/place-ment in the service.

Moreover, any change in the pay- scales following Punjab & Haryana High Court can set in motion chain reaction for other employees which may give rise to multiplicity of litigation among "arious categories of employees. Rules of each High Court have to be examined independently. There cannot be any such law that Himachal Pradesh High Court has to suo motu follow the same rules as applicable to the employees working in the Punjab & Haryana High Court."

14 2025:HHC:28289

28. In Shiba Kumar Dutta and others vs. Union of

India and others, (1997) 3 SCC 545, the exposition has been

made as under:

"3. The admitted position is that the

petitioner, who are working as fitter (T & G), had sought to be fused in the category of, and to be on par with, Jig Borers. They sought equal pay on

par with them. They contend that they were drawing higher pay-scales than the Fitter; instead of elevating their cadre and placing them in the r higher pay- scales, they have been brought them

down in the category as a Fitter after removing the two nomenclatures. Thereby, it is arbitrary on account of invidious discrimination. The Third Pay

Commission had gone into that aspect of the matter and fixed the scales of pay. Thereafter, admittedly, Expert Classification Committee and

Anomalies Removal Committee had also gone

into the matter and made distinction between them. Subsequently, nomenclature of all of them were removed and fused into one category,

namely, Fitter. Nomenclature and fitment is one of executive policy of the Government. Unless the action is arbitrary or there is invidious discrimination between persons similarly situated, doing same type of work, as is pointed out, it would be difficult for the Court to go into the question of equation of posts or fitment into a particular scale of pay. They must be left to be decided by the Expert Committees and evaluate the job criteria and scales of pay prescribed for

15 2025:HHC:28289

each category. Under those circumstances, the Tribunal is justified in refusing to go into the question."

29. Later in P.U. Joshi and others vs. Accountant

General, Ahmadabad and others, (2003) 2 SCC 632, the

following principles has been laid down:

"10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties.

Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications r and other conditions of service including avenues

of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy and within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the

State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the Statutory Tribunals, at any

rate, to direct the Government to have a particular

method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State.

Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substruction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute

16 2025:HHC:28289

different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and

.

restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of

service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing existing cadres/posts and creating new

cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the

one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or rbenefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a Government servant has

no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service."

30. In Secretary, Mahatama Gandhi Mission and

another vs. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena and others, (2017) 4 SCC

449, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"62. The fact that the Government of India accepted the recommendations of the Sixth Pay

Commission (for that matter any pay commission) does not either oblige the States to follow the pattern of the revised pay structure adopted by the Government of India or create any right in favour of the employees of the State or other bodies falling within the legislative authority of the State. The Government of India has no authority either under the Constitution or under any law to compel the States or their instrumentalities to

17 2025:HHC:28289

adopt the pay structure applicable to the employees of the Government of India."

31. In light of above noticed exposition of law, there is no

hesitation to hold that no right has accrued in favour of the

petitioners for claiming parity of scale with their counterparts in

the State of Punjab. The mere fact that the State of Himachal

Pradesh has been following pay pattern followed in the State of

Punjab on the basis of recommendations made by the Punjab

Pay Commission, does not mean that the State of Himachal

Pradesh has bound itself to follow such pay pattern for all intents

and purposes. As per the stand of the respondents, the State of

Himachal Pradesh takes an independent decision on the issue as

to what extent it has to follow the pay pattern adopted by Punjab

on the recommendations of its Pay Commission and exercise of

such power cannot be said to be beyond the competence of the

State Government. That being so, the only scope left to examine

the contentions of the petitioners is to test the decision-making

process undertaken by the State of Himachal Pradesh at the

touchstone of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

32. Indisputably, the matter regarding grant of four-tier

pay scale to the Lecturers in Government Polytechnics in

Himachal Pradesh was placed before the Council of Ministers.

After deliberation, the Council of Ministers did not find favour in

18 2025:HHC:28289

granting the benefit of four-tier pay scale to the said category of

employees. In the memorandum placed before Council of

Ministers, it was mentioned that the grant of four-tier pay scale to

the Lecturers in Polytechnics would entail financial burden and

will also create hierarchal imbalance in future, as the category of

Lecturers in Polytechnics, if allowed the benefit of four-tier pay

scale, they would get higher pay than the Deputy Commissioners

after nine years. Obviously, the Council of Ministers having

considered the various aspects of the matter did not find it

appropriate and legitimate to allow the benefit of four-tier pay

scale to the Lecturers in Polytechnics. This Court does not find

any flaw in the decision-making process. It is more than settled

that the grant of pay scales or parity of pay scales is the job of

experts, who after considering various relevant aspects, take the

decision. This Court cannot sit as an expert to impose its own

opinion.

33. The petitioners have laid stress by urging that as per

the stand of the State of Himachal Pradesh it would have allowed

the pay scale to the petitioners as per the recommendations of 5 th

Punjab Pay Commission had the same been followed by Punjab

Government, but since it has not been done the petitioners would

not be allowed the benefit of DACPS allowed to their counterparts

in Punjab on the basis of decision taken by the Cabinet Sub-

19 2025:HHC:28289

committee of said State. It has further been urged that the

financial implication by adopting the first situation would have

been much higher than the latter. The argument, as raised by the

petitioners, has no basis, being hypothetical. As noticed above,

State Government is not even bound to follow the pay pattern of

Punjab even if that State follows the recommendations of its Pay

Commission.

34.

Another fact that the State Government had allowed

the benefit of four-tier pay scale to the State Forest Services also

cannot be a ground for the petitioners to claim a right of parity.

The decision of the State Government cannot be said to be bad in

law merely because it has decided to grant the benefit to one

category of its employees as against the others. This Court sees

no arbitrariness or irrationality in the decision of the State

Government. It also cannot be said to be discriminatory for the

petitioners cannot seek parity with the State Forest Services

which operate in different domain.

35. The petitioners have placed reliance on the judgment

passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Minor

Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and others vs. G.S. Uppal

and others, (2008)7 SCC 375, in which it has been held as

under:

20 2025:HHC:28289

"21. There is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle as settled in the above-cited decisions of this Court that fixation of pay and

.

determination of parity in duties is the function of the Executive and the scope of judicial review of administrative decision in this regard is very

limited. However, it is also equally well-settled that the courts should interfere with the administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity

when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material

and relevant factors. [see K.T. Veerappa & Ors. v.

State of Karnataka & Ors.(2006) 9 SCC 406] 22 to 28 xx xx xx

29. The learned Single Judge of the High

Court as also the learned Judges of the Division Bench have considered the controversy in detail

in their judgments holding the respondents entitled for the revision of pay scales at par with

their counter-parts working in the State of Haryana.

30. xx xx xx

31 A careful examination shows that the issue was not really about grant of pay scales to Corporation Engineers on par with PWD Engineers. When the pay revision took place, the revised pay scales that were given to the Engineers of the State Government were also given to the engineers of the Corporation with

21 2025:HHC:28289

effect from 1.1.1986 thereby maintaining the parity. What was not extended to the Corporation employees, which is the subject matter of the

grievance, is the further revision by way of

'removal of anomaly in pay scales' given to AEE/AE/SDO/SDE of the State Government with

effect from 1.5.1989 vide circular dated 2.6.1989 of the Finance Commissioner. The real question would be whether what is given by way of

anomaly removal in the case of Engineers of State Government, should automatically be extended to the corresponding categories of

engineers of the Corporation.

32. When, after a pay revision, an anomaly is found in the pay scale given to a class of Government servants and such anomaly is rectified, it is not a new pay revision but a

correction of the original pay revision, or an amendment to the pay scale that has already

been granted. Therefore, where the pay revision extended to the government servants has already

been extended to the employees of the Corporation also, it follows that any correction of

anomaly in the revised pay scale given to the government servants should also be made in the case of those who were earlier given parity by extending the pay scale which is the subject matter of the correction. It should be borne in mind that the question whether Corporation engineers were on par with PWD Engineers and should be given parity in pay scales was already decided when the pay scale revision granted to Government (PWD) engineers was extended to

22 2025:HHC:28289

the corporation Engineers also with effect from 1.1.1986. That question did not again arise when the anomaly in the pay revision was rectified with

reference to the Government engineers. When the

anomaly in the pay scale of Government engineers was rectified, the rectification should

apply to Corporation engineers also to maintain the parity.

33. The plea of the appellants that the

Corporation is running under losses and it cannot meet the financial burden on account of revision of scales of pay has been rejected by the High

Court and, in our view, rightly so. Whatever may

be the factual position, there appears to be no basis for the action of the appellants in denying the claim of revision of pay scales to the respondents. If the Government feels that the

Corporation is running into losses, measures of economy, avoidance of frequent writing off of

dues, reduction of posts or repatriating deputationists may provide the possible solution

to the problem. Be that as it may, such a contention may not be available to the appellants

in the light of the principle enunciated by this Court in M.M.R. Khan v. Union of India [1990 Supp. SCC 191] and Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers' Union [(2000) 4 SCC 245]. However, so long as the posts do exist and are manned, there appears to be no justification for granting the respondents a scale of pay lower than that sanctioned for those employees who are brought on deputation. In fact, the sequence of events, discussed above, clearly

23 2025:HHC:28289

shows that the employees of the Corporation have been treated at par with those in Government at the time of revision of scales of pay on every

occasion."

36. The petitioners cannot avail any benefit of the

aforesaid precedent for the reason that what has been held in

aforesaid judgment is in the specific context of its peculiar facts.

In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was examining the case

of a Public Sector Corporation wherein different pay scales were

being applied to those who were the employees of the

Corporation and those who were on deputation, on the premise

that the incumbents on deputation were employees of the State

Government and since the State Government had granted higher