[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash & Anr vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 15 December, 2025
CWP-16192-2015 & connected cases -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
204 (3 cases) CWP-16192-2015
Date of Decision: 15.12.2025
Om Parkash and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
With
Sr. Case No. Petitioners Respondents
No.
2. CWP-13202-2015 Hari Singh and others State of Haryana and
others
3. CWP-16198-2015 Krishan Kumar and State of Haryana and
others others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: - Mr. Anurag Goyal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Nikhil Lather, Advocate and
Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. Ravi Partap Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with
the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common
order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from
CWP No.16192 of 2015.
2. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of order dated
28.08.2014 to the extent of upgradation of functional pay structure w.e.f.
01.09.2014 instead of 01.01.2006.
1 of 7
CWP-16192-2015 & connected cases -2-
3. The petitioners are retired police officers. The State
Government vide notification dated 30.12.2008 framed Haryana Civil
Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. These Rules came into force w.e.f.
01.01.2006. By way of these Rules, pay scales of State Government
employees were revised. The petitioners were in pay scale of 5500-175-
8300-EB-175-9000. Their pay scale was revised to ₹9300-34800/-. They
were further granted grade pay of ₹3600/-. The State Government from time
to time revised grade pay of employees of different departments e.g.
Accountants of Haryana Bureau of Public Enterprises were granted grade
pay of ₹3600/- instead of ₹3200/- w.e.f. 01.04.2011, APRO and equivalent
of Public Relation were granted grade pay of ₹4000/- in place of 3600/-
w.e.f. 01.09.2009. The State Government vide order dated 28.08.2014
decided to revise grade pay of its employees except whose grade pay was
revised during the intervening period i.e. 2008-2014. The grade pay of
₹3200/- and ₹3300/- was upgraded to ₹3600/- and grade pay of ₹3600/- was
upgraded to ₹4000/-. In the said order, it was made clear that upgradation
would take place w.e.f. 01.09.2014 and employees whose grade pay had
already been upgraded would not be entitled to benefit of this order.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are retired police officials and they have been discriminated with
employees of other departments. The petitioners were granted upgradation
of grade pay w.e.f. 01.09.2014 whereas upgradation of grade pay was
granted to employees of other department w.e.f. 01.01.2006. In the case of
Teachers, the respondent granted upgradation on actual basis w.e.f.
01.09.2009 and notional basis w.e.f. 01.01.2006. They approached this Court
by way of CWP No.511 of 2011 which was allowed vide judgment dated
22.05.2012. This Court held that petitioners are entitled to upgraded grade
2 of 7
CWP-16192-2015 & connected cases -3-
pay on actual basis w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The said judgment has attained
finality. The respondent is denying benefit to petitioners on the ground that
upgradation of pay scale is a complex matter and it needs expertise. The
Courts are not experts, thus, cannot interfere in these matters. There is no
rationale behind the claim of the respondent. The petitioners have been
denied their valuable right of upgradation of scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006. No
complexity is involved. The respondent, as per its whims and caprice, has
discriminated the petitioners. There is no intelligible differentia and
foundation to treat petitioners differently from other employees.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that a Full Bench of
this Court in Rajbir Singh and others v. HSEB and others, 2009 SCC
OnLine P&H 1230 has held that employees are entitled to pay scales from
the date granted by State Government. Full Bench has overruled decision of
Division Bench of this Court wherein claim of employees was allowed. The
Division Bench had held that petitioners were entitled to higher pay scales
from the date the employees of State Governments were extended i.e.
01.01.1986.
6. I have heard the arguments of learned Senior counsel for the
petitioners as well as learned State counsel and perused the record with their
able assistance.
7. From the perusal of record, it is evident that State Government
vide notification dated 30.12.2008 framed Haryana Civil Services (Revised
Pay) Rules, 2008. These Rules were framed in exercise of powers conferred
by Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Revised Pay Rules extended
higher scale to State Government employees w.e.f. 01.01.2006 though Rules
were framed by way of notification dated 30.12.2008. The functional pay
3 of 7
CWP-16192-2015 & connected cases -4-
scale of employees was revised. They were granted pay band along with
grade pay. The grade pay was running from ₹1300/- to ₹6000/-. The
petitioners were granted grade pay of ₹3600/-. The State Government from
time to time issued orders whereby grade pay was revised. The revision was
made post-wise e.g. grade pay of Accountants of Haryana Bureau of Public
Enterprises was revised though revision was not made with respect to other
employees of said department. The revision took place from retrospective
date. In the case of APRO and equivalent of Public Relation, revision was
made w.e.f. 01.09.2009. Grade pay of ₹3200/- was revised to ₹3600/- and
₹3600/- to ₹4000. In the case of Education Department, grade pay of
Teachers was revised w.e.f. 01.09.2009 (actually) and w.e.f. 01.01.2006
(notionally). The revision was not made with respect to all the Teachers and
many Teachers filed writ petition before this Court. The writ petition was
allowed noticing the fact that decision of Central Government cannot be
made applicable to few Teachers. Giving effect to Central Government's
decision to all the teachers except PTI, Art & Craft (Drawing) and Cutting &
Tailoring w.e.f. 01.01.2006 is discriminatory. PTI, Art & Craft and Cutting
& Tailoring Teachers are also entitled to said benefit w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
8. No employee can claim that he should be extended a particular
pay scale. It is discretion of the Government to determine pay scale. If there
is discrimination between similarly situated employees, an employee getting
lower pay scale may raise grievance, however, he cannot claim that he
should be given higher pay scale or pay scale should be fixed in a particular
manner.
9. Relying upon its earlier judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh
v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai, (2009) 13 SCC 635, a two Judge Bench of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal
4 of 7
CWP-16192-2015 & connected cases -5-
Secretary & Others v. Seema Sharma, (2023) 14 SCC 376 has held that
doctrine of equal pay for equal work could only be invoked when the
employees were similarly circumstanced in every way. Mere similarity of
designation or quantum of work was not determinative of equality in the
matter of pay scales. The fixation of scales of pay is a matter of policy, with
which the Courts can only interfere in exceptional cases where there is
discrimination between two sets of employees appointed by the same
authority, in the same manner, where the eligibility criteria is the same and
the duties are identical in every aspect.
10. In Hukam Chand Gupta v. Director General, Indian Council
of Agricultural Research and others, (2012) 12 SCC 666, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that the prescription of two different pay scales
would not violate the principle of equal pay for equal pay. Such action
would not be arbitrary or violate Articles 14, 16 and 39-D of the
Constitution of India. It is for the employer to categorize the posts and to
prescribe the duties of each post. There cannot be any straightjacket formula
for holding that two posts having the same nomenclature would have to be
given the same pay scale.
Prescription of pay scales for particular posts is a very complex
exercise. It requires assessment of the nature and quality of the duties
performed and the responsibilities shouldered by the incumbents on different
posts. Even though the two posts may be referred to by the same name, it
would not lead to the necessary inference that the posts are identical in every
manner. These are matters to be assessed by expert bodies like the employer
or the Pay Commission.
5 of 7
CWP-16192-2015 & connected cases -6-
11. In the case in hand, the petitioners belonged to Police
Department. The State Government did not think it appropriate to upgrade
their grade pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 whereas decided to upgrade w.e.f.
01.09.2014. It is apt to notice here that petitioners were granted grade pay of
₹3600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006 i.e. the date from which Revised Pay Scale Rules
were brought into force. There was no objection on the part of petitioners
with respect to grade pay of ₹3600/- granted to them. The State Government,
as per its wisdom, decided to revise their grade pay from ₹3600/- to ₹4000/-
w.e.f. 01.09.2014. It was complete prerogative of the State Government to
upgrade their grade pay which was originally granted w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The
State Government was not bound to upgrade grade pay which was for the
first time granted w.e.f. 01.01.2006. By order dated 28.08.2014, the State
Government upgraded grade pay. There was no duty to upgrade from the
date of inception i.e. 01.01.2006. In the order dated 28.08.2014, there is a
table disclosing different posts and departments where grade pay was
revised. There are different employees of different departments whose grade
pay has been revised from different dates. In the case of Pharmacist of ESI,
grade pay has been revised w.e.f. 10.01.2013. Similar is case of Assistant
Librarian of Haryana Vidhan Sabha. Those employees could also claim that
their grade pay should be upgraded w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The State
Government, as per its wisdom, has upgraded grade pay of different
employees of different departments from different dates. The petitioners
being police officers were getting 13 months salary besides dress allowance,
conveyance allowance, ration money, risk allowance which are not payable
to employees of other departments.
6 of 7
CWP-16192-2015 & connected cases -7-
12. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of
the considered opinion that present petitions deserve to be dismissed and
accordingly dismissed.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
15.12.2025
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
