1. Since similar questions of facts and law are involved in all these petitions, same were being heard together and are now being disposed of vide this common judgment. However, for the sake of clarity, facts of CWPOA No. 673 of 2019 are being discussed herein below.

2. Petitioners, are working as Senior Laboratory Technicians with the respondent Department, which is the next promotional post for the cadre of Laboratory Attendants. Copy of relevant extract of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Senior Laboratory Technician i.e. "The HP Health and Family Welfare Department Sub ordinate class-III services Rectt. & promotion and certain conditions of service (Amendment) Rules, 1986" is annexed as Annexure P-1. Senior Laboratory Technicians in the respondent Department are entrusted the duties of over-all in charge of the laboratory work in various medical colleges hospitals and play a pivotal role in the medical process by assisting the diagnostic decision of the medical officers.

3. State of Himachal Pradesh had been adopting the pay pattern of Punjab in the matters of pay scales applicable to its employees. In the State of Punjab, Senior Laboratory Technicians approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, praying therein for revision of their pay scales with effect from 1978 till subsequent stages on the ground that the pay scale being paid to them do not commensurate with their qualifications and experience held and nature of duties being performed by them. High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a number of cases i.e. CWP No. 13425 of 1995, titled Ravinder Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others, CWP no. 13426 of 1995 titled Ved Parkash Mangla v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 14095 of 1999 titled Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 15274 of 2003 titled Manju Sharma v. State of Punjab and CWP No. 4343 of 2003, titled as Sikandar Singh v. State of Punjab etc., allowed following pay scales to the Senior Laboratory Technicians:

4. Though the aforesaid decision rendered by High Court of Punjab and Haryana was laid challenge in appeal before the Division Bench in LPA No. 1438 of 2001, but the same was dismissed and the decision rendered by High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Manju Sharma (supra) came to be upheld. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision rendered by High Court of Punjab and Haryana, State of Punjab granted revision of pay scale in the State vide office orders issued from time to time, as is evident from copies of the same dated 27.8.2002 (Annexure P-4), 16.5.2003 (Annexure P-5), 14.7.2005 (Annexure P-6), 12.12.2005 (Annexure P-7) and 20.1.2006 (Annexure P-8). Record further reveals that the revised pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- fixed with effect from 1.1.1986 stands further revised with effect from 1.1.1996 to Rs. 6400-10640 in the State of Punjab. Government of Punjab issued a Notification dated 11.4.2011 (Annexure P-9), granting thereby following revised pay scales to the category of Senior Laboratory Technician:

w.e.f. 1.1.1978 825-1580

w.e.f. 1.1.986 2000-3500

w.e.f. 1.1.1996 6400-10640

5. Petitioners herein, who are Senior Laboratory Technicians in the State of Himachal Pradesh and are corresponding category for which revised pay scale has been made payable by the Government of Punjab, made oral as well as written representation (Annexure P-10), praying therein for revision of pay scales at par with their counterparts in Punjab in terms of decision dated 22.5.2003. Aforesaid representation was responded vide letter dated 5.6.2003 (Annexure P-11), whereby it was informed that the matter was considered at Government level and necessary action shall be taken with regard to the same. Since for a long period nothing was heard from the respondents, petitioners again filed representation dated 6.11.2003 (Annexure P-12) reiterating and reasserting their request for payment of revised pay scale to the category of the petitioners on Punjab pattern. It appears that the respondents paid no heed to the aforesaid representation field by the petitioner, as such, they again sent representations dated 7.9.2008 and 3.1.2010 (Annexures P-13 and P-13A), requesting the respondents to revise the pay scales on Punjab pattern, but since no response was received from the respondents, petitioners earlier approached this Court by way of writ petitions, mostly in the year 2011, which were transferred in 2015 to erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, on its establishment and thereafter again transferred to this Court on abolition of the Tribunal and registered as such. Since prayer in all the petitions is same and similar, it would suffice to reproduce main reliefs sought in CWPOA No. 673 of 2019, which are as under:

"That the instant petition may kindly be allowed and a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant to the petitioners, the revised pay-scales granted to the Senior Lab Technicians in the State of Punjab with effect from the dates from the same has been paid to the latter, vide Annexures P-4 and P-8, read with Annexure P-9, with all consequences, including grant of further revised scale in accordance with the general conversion table w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

That arrears of higher pay found payable consequent to the grant of such fixation of pay scales with effect from 1978 and subsequent revisional dates, be paid to the petitioners with upto date interest thereupon @ 12% from the date of filling due."

6. Grievance of the petitioners, as highlighted in the petitions and as has been further canvassed by Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Karan Singh Parmar, Advocate and Mr. Loveneesh Kanwar, Mr. Mukul Sood and Mr. Pawan K. Sharma, Advocates, appearing for the petitioners in all respective petitions, is that on the analogy of Punjab, they being similarly situate to the category of Senior Laboratory Technicians in the State of Punjab are also entitled to pay revision with effect from 1978 and as per further revisions. Petitioners assert that since Government of Himachal Pradesh follows Punjab pattern in the matter of pay scales, it ought to have revised the pays scales of the petitioners with effect from 1978, as has been done in the case of their counterparts in Punjab, pursuant to direction issued by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in LPA No. 1438 of 2001. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently argued that the action on the part of the respondents in deviating from consistently followed policy is illegal and unconstitutional. They further argued that the petitioners are similarly situate to the Senior Laboratory Technicians in the Department of Health in the State of Punjab with regard to duties being discharged and responsibility being shouldered by them. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that parity inter se Senior Laboratory Technicians in Himachal Pradesh and Punjab is evident from the fact that the petitioners herein were placed in the same pre-revised pay scale, in which their counterparts in Punjab were placed. They further stated that the petitioners and their counterparts in Punjab were similarly placed in the pre-revised pay scales, as such, there is no justification in denying the benefit of revision to the petitioners in deviation of the revision made in the case of their counterparts in Punjab. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners further argued that the failure on the part of the respondents to implement revised pay scale in the case of the petitioners at par with their counterparts in Punjab has led to defeat the principle of legitimate expectations of the petitioners, at the hands of the respondents. They further submitted that the scale of Senior Laboratory Technician as per amended Rules, Annexure P-1 clearly suggests that pay scale admissible to the petitioners at the time of entry in the cadre was Rs. 510-940, 680-1120 (20% Selection Grade), which was the same as that payable to the Senior Laboratory Technicians in Punjab with effect from 1.1.1978 (pre-revised). To demonstrate aforesaid parity, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners invited attention of this Court to Office Memorandum dated 17.7.1995 issued by the Director Health Services to all the Chief Medical Officers in the State (Annexure P-14). They submitted that bare perusal of aforesaid communication clearly reveals that pay scale of the petitioners on 1.1.1986 was same as of their counterparts in Punjab i.e. Rs. 1400-2460.

7. Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, while opposing the claim of the petitioners, vehemently argued that matter of grant of pay scale to any category is a matter in the realm of executive decision and is an exclusive discretion of the Government and same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. He argued that decision regarding grant of particular pay scale to any category is taken by the Government after considering various factors viz. financial status/constraints, resources and other relevant factors. He further argued that State of Himachal Pradesh is not legally bound to follow Punjab pattern of pay scales. Mr. Vaidya, while inviting attention of this Court to the reply filed by the State, argued that the State of Himachal Pradesh may not follow the pay scales given on the basis of decision of High Court of Punjab and Haryana, He further argued that in Punjab, there are three categories of Laboratory Technicians i.e. Medical Laboratory Technician Grade-2, Medical Laboratory Technician Grade 1 and Senior Laboratory Technician, whereas, in Himachal Pradesh, there is only one category of Laboratory Technician, which has been redesignated as Senior Laboratory Technician with effect from 24.1.1981. In view of above, Mr. Vaidya argued that simply on the basis of similarity in nomenclature, no legal, legitimate or enforceable right accrues in favour of the petitioners to claim higher pay scales. He further argued that the representations filed by the petitioners were examined at Government level in consultation with the advisory department and same after thorough examination stood rejected. In support of his afore contentions, Mr. Vaidya, invited attention of this Court to judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. P.D. Attri and others, Civil Appeal No. 2033 of 1996 decided on 11.2.1999, Mr. Vaidya argued that each State has its own individualistic way of governance under the Constitution and 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. Mr. Vaidya further argued that if claim of the petitioners is accepted, it would not only lead to huge financial implication but would also invite multiplicity of litigation as all other persons working in different categories in the State would start raising claim on similar analogy and there would be no end to it.

8. Lastly, Mr. Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate General invited attention of this Court to decision dated 16.4.2013 taken by the Government, whereby pay scales of the petitioners have been revised on the basis of judgment passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 13274 of 2003 titled Manju Sharma and others v. State of Punjab, further upheld by Division Bench in LPA No. 1438 of 2011 with effect from 1.5.2013 and argued that once pay of the petitioners has been revised on Punjab pattern, present petition has been rendered infructuous.

9. I have heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

10. Having heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the pleadings adduced on record, by respective parties, it is clear that the facts as have been taken note herein above are almost undisputed, as such, need not be discussed again. In nutshell, petitioners have sought a direction to the respondents to pay them revised pay scale at par with the Senior Laboratory Technicians in the State of Punjab, with all consequential benefits.

11. Prayer made on behalf of the petitioners has been opposed on the ground that the State of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow Punjab pattern. It is also not in dispute that during the pendency of the cases, Government of Himachal Pradesh, vide decision dated 16.4.2013, has already granted revision of pay scales to the petitioner with effect from 1.5.2013, whereas said is being claimed by the petitioners from the date, their counterparts in Punjab were given such benefit.

12. Since benefit, as is being claimed in the instant petition already stands granted to the petitioners vide decision dated 16.4.2013 taken by the Government of Himachal Pradesh with effect from 1.5.2013, only question which remains to be decided in the instant petition is that, "whether the petitioners are entitled to revision of pay scales on the analogy of Punjab with effect from 1.1.1978 and at all subsequent stages on the ground that State of Himachal Pradesh in principle follows Punjab in the matter of pay scales"

13. Before ascertaining the correctness and genuineness of the rival contentions/submissions made by Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and exploring answer to the aforesaid questions of law, this court deems it necessary to discuss the scope of judicial review in the matters of pay revision by the State.

14. By now, it is well settled that normally the courts should not interfere with the recommendations of an expert body, as it is exclusive domain of the State to decide pay scales to be paid to a particular class/category, which it normally decides on the basis of recommendations made by the Pay Commission, which is a proper authority to decide upon the issues and decision of a statutory body like Pay Commission is not subject to judicial review.

15. Reliance is placed upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General, (2003) 2 SCC 632, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that 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. Hon'ble Apex Court held in the judgment supra as under:

"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 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/subtraction 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 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 benefits 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."

16. Reliance is placed upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court on 5.3.2020 in case Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that interference with the recommendations of the expert body like Pay Commission and its recommendations for the MACP, would have serious impact on the public exchequer Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment supra held as under:

"51. The ACP Scheme which is now superseded by MACP Scheme is a matter of government policy. Interference with the recommendations of the expert body like Pay Commission and its recommendations for the MACP, would have serious impact on the public exchequer. The recommendations of the Pay Commission for MACP Scheme has been accepted by the Government and implemented. There is nothing to show that the Scheme is arbitrary or unjust warranting interference. Without considering the advantages in the MACP Scheme, the High Courts erred in interfering with the government's policy in accepting the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission by simply placing reliance upon Raj Pal's case. The impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside."

17. Under Entry No. 41 of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India, State Government has exclusive jurisdiction on State Public Services. The pay scales and service conditions prescribed under Article 309 are alone applicable in the State. Thus, pay scales of Punjab cannot be applied until the State Government issues its own orders.

18. Main argument/submission raised on behalf of the petitioners that the State of Himachal Pradesh is bound to follow pay pattern fixed by Punjab, already stands negated/rejected by Hon'ble Apex Court in the celebrated case titled State of Himachal Pradesh v. P.D. Attri, (1999) 3 SCC 317, wherein it has been categorically held that the State is not bound to follow the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of other State and even if it has been following the same, it is not bound to follow every change made by the other State.

19. In the aforesaid facts, Hon'ble Apex Court held that even though State of Himachal Pradesh, as per policy and practice had been adopting pay scales for its employees as sanctioned from time to time by the State of Punjab and Haryana but yet State of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow every change brought in the rules and regulations in the other State. Hon'ble Apex Court held that every State has its own individualistic way of governance under the Constitution. No law commands it to follow the pay scales granted by another State. Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

"5. 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 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 reorganised 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 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/placement 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 various 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."

20. In view of the exposition of law in P.D. Attri supra, it is to be seen as to whether the petitioners have been able to establish violation of constitutional or other legal provisions when they lay their claim based upon parity qua a post or similarly situate post in Punjab or pay scale granted in the other State.

21. In the case at hand, though petitioners have claimed that the category of Senior Laboratory Technicians in the State of Himachal Pradesh is similar to the category of laboratory technician serving in Punjab in the Health Department, as regards the nature of duties discharged as well as responsibilities shouldered by them but in the instant petition, they have not made any whisper regarding nature of work done by them so as to compare them with their counterparts in the State of Punjab.

22. Leaving everything aside, this court finds that there exists three categories of laboratory technicians in the State of Punjab in different pay scales i.e.

23. In the State of Himachal Pradesh, there exists only one category of laboratory technician in the Health and Family Welfare Department i.e. Laboratory Technician in the pay scale of Rs. 510-940 (1.1.1978), 1410-2460 (1.1.1986) and 5000-8100 (1.1.1996). Category of laboratory technician was subsequently re-designated as Senior Laboratory Technician in the State on 24.1.1981. A comparison of the position existing in the two States clearly reveals that the category of Senior Laboratory Technician in Punjab is at third level from the initial stage whereas, in the State of Himachal Pradesh, it is initial rank of laboratory technician and on the top of everything, the categorization of Medical Laboratory Technician Grades 1 and 2, does not exist in the State of Himachal Pradesh. There are no promotional avenues for the category of Senior Laboratory Technician in the State of Punjab, whereas in the State of Himachal Pradesh, promotional avenue has been created for the Senior Laboratory Technicians i.e. post of Chief Laboratory Technician with pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925 (1.1.1986) and 5480-8925 (1.1.1996).

24. No legal, legitimate or enforceable right accrues in favour of the petitioners to claim higher pay scale on the basis of similarity in nomenclature, if any.

25. Ms. Parmar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, argued that since State of Himachal Pradesh had been consistently following practice of adopting Punjab pay scales and had subsequently granted pay revision on the analogy of Punjab, action of the respondents in denying pay revision to the petitioners, as has been granted to their counterparts in Punjab, on the basis of judgment passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana, is not sustainable in the eye of law.

26. However, aforesaid argument deserves outright rejection in view of specific law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in P.D. Attri, wherein it has been held that even if State of Himachal Pradesh as per practice has been granting pay scales to its employees, it is not bound to follow every change brought about in the rules and regulations in other States.

27. Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of cases had an occasion to deal with the question, which has fallen for determination in the cases at hand. Vide order dated 22.9.2020, Division Bench of this Court in case titled State of Himachal Pradesh & others v. Dr. Suman Sharma, CWP No. 2710 of 2018 and other connected matters, decided on 22.9.2020, while placing reliance upon various judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court, has held that the State of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow the Rules and Regulations as applicable to the employees of Punjab or other States, even if it has adopted some rules and regulations, it is not bound to follow every change brought in such rules and regulations in other State. Division Bench held as under:

"4. Observations:

Regarding following the Punjab Pattern of Pay-Scale.

4(i) Reliance upon the notification dated 21.12.2011 issued by State of Punjab for claiming Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/- is misplaced. This notification was issued by Government of Punjab and not by Government of Himachal Pradesh. Even though petitioner-State has admitted that by and large it takes into consideration the Punjab pattern of pay-scale. But the fact cannot be lost sight of that the petitioner-State examines the matter of pay-scales in view of it own staffing pattern, Recruitment & Promotion Rules, method of recruitment, educational qualifications, geographical/traditional/territorial conditions and financial resources and then fixes the pay-scales for its employees by framing statutory Rules under Article 309 of Constitution of India. Government of Himachal Pradesh is not legally bound to follow Punjab pattern pay-scales.

In (1999) 3 SCC 217 titled State of H.P. vs. P.D. Attri and others, Hon'ble Apex Court held that even if State of Himachal Pradesh as per policy & practice has been adopting pay-scales for its employees as sanctioned from time to time by States of Punjab and Haryana yet State of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow it or if it had adopted rules and regulations applicable to employees of other State even then it is not bound to follow every change brought in the rules and regulations in the other State. Every State has its own individualistic way of governance under the Constitution. No law commands it to follow pay scales granted by any other State. Relevant paras of the judgment are extracted hereinafter:-

"5. 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 and 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 "accepts 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 Punjab and Haryana in regard to the rules and regulations applicable to the employees in the States of Punjab and 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 and 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 reorganised into States of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh. Chandigarh, 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 and Haryana High court rules of their employees. When Punjab and 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, in the Himachal Pradesh High court similar effect was given to in its rules for its employees. When the Punjab and 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 and Haryana High court and it may go on following those rules as may be amended by the punjab and 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 and 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 Translators and Junior Translators that may exist between Punjab and Haryana High court and the Himachal Pradesh High court and also as to the mode of their recruitment/placement in the service. Moreover, any change in the pay-scale following Punjab and Haryana High court can set in motion chain reaction for other employees which may give rise to multiplicity of litigation among various 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 and Haryana High court".

It will also be apposite to refer here to a judgment rendered on 16.10.2014 by a Single Bench of this Court in CWP No. 8425/2010 titled Balvinder Singh Mahal Vs. State of H.P. and others to the effect that State of Himachal Pradesh is not required to follow Punjab or any other Government's pattern of pay scale. Relevant paras of the judgment are extracted hereunder:-

"7. In view of the exposition of law in P.D. Attri's case (supra), it has to be seen as to whether the petitioner has been able to establish violation of any constitutional or any other legal provision when he has laid claim based upon parity with the posts with similarly situate persons in the State of Punjab and claiming pay scales granted in the said State.

8. The petitioner nowhere in the petition has made even whisper regarding the nature of the work done by him so as to compare it with his counterparts in State of Punjab. Further, he has not even mentioned the educational qualifications, the working conditions and other relevant factors so as to make it possible for this Court to come to a conclusion with regard to similarity in the nature of work performed by the petitioner vis-à-vis his counterparts in the adjoining State of Punjab. The petitioner has simply relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India versus Dineshan K.K. (2008) 1 SCC 586, State of Kerala versus B. Renjith Kumar and others (2008) 12 SCC 219 and Hukam Chand Gupta versus Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research and others (2012) 12 SCC 666.

9. No doubt, the aforesaid cases deal with the doctrine of equal pay for equal work, but the same is not an abstract doctrine capable of being enforced in a Court of law. However, this principle has no mathematical application in every case and a number of factors have to be considered before applying this principle. This principle requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job and normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body and the Court should not interfere till it is satisfied that the necessary material on the basis whereof the claim is made is available on record with necessary proof and that there is equal work of equal quality and all other relevant factors are fulfilled."

In (2017) 4 SCC 449 titled Secretary Mahatma Gandhi Mission and another vs. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena and others in following paras, it was held that even the recommendations of pay commission are not binding on the Government of India. They are meant for administrative guidance. The Government of India may reject or accept the recommendations either fully or partly. Even if Government of India accepts that recommendations of Pay Commission, then also it has no authority to compel the States to adopt structure applicable to Government of India.

"60. The Sixth Pay Commission appointed by the Government of India is only a body entrusted with the job of making an assessment of the need to revise the pay structure of the employees of the Government of India and to suggest appropriate measures for revision of the pay structure. The recommendations of the pay commission are not binding on the Government of India, much less any other body. They are only meant for administrative guidance of the Government of India. The Government of India may accept or reject the recommendations either fully or partly, though it has never happened that the recommendations of the pay commission are completely rejected by the Government so far.

61. Once the Government of India accepted the recommendations of the pay commission and issued orders signifying its acceptance, it became the decision of the Government of India. That decision of the Government of India created a right in favour of its employees to receive pay in terms of the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission and the Government of India is obliged to pay.

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

In Civil Appeal No. 2016/2020, titled Union of India and others Vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair, decided on 5.03.2020, Hon'ble Apex Court held that Court should not interfere with the recommendations of the expert body. When the Government has accepted the recommendation of the Pay Commission and has also implemented those, any interference by the Court would have a serious impact on the public exchequer. It was observed that it is the function of the Government which normally acts on the recommendations of the Pay Commission, which is the proper authority to decide upon the issues and decision of experts bodies like the Pay Commission is not ordinarily subject to judicial review.

Therefore, Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/- cannot be released to the respondent merely on the ground that Punjab Government grants this grade pay to its Senior Lecturer/Assistant Professor/Reader. Punjab pattern of pay scales will not be ipso facto binding upon the petitioner-State.

28. At this stage, Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned Senior Advocate argued that there is ample material available on record suggestive of the fact that the nature of work performed by the petitioners in the State of Himachal Pradesh is same as of their counterparts in Punjab. She also argued that the nature of duties discharged as well as responsibilities shouldered by the petitioners in the State of Himachal Pradesh are similar to that of their counterparts in the State of Himachal Pradesh, which fact is evident from the fact that the petitioners were placed in same pre-revised pay scales as their counterparts in the State of Punjab were placed. She argued that careful perusal of the minutes of meeting of the Expert Committee held on 16.4.2013 under the Chairmanship of Principal Secretary (Finance) (Annexure R-4) clearly reveals that the Finance Department vide 28.9.2012 revised the grade pay of Senior Laboratory Technician from Rs. 3200 to Rs. 3600 treating it at par with lowest feeder category of Medical Laboratory Technician, Grade-2 in Punjab, which has been allowed grade pay of Rs. 3600/- with effect from 1.12.2011 and has been allowed pay scale of Rs. 4550-7220 with effect from 1.1.1996 in place of Rs. 3330-6200 in terms of High Court of Punjab and Haryana order.

29. However, having carefully perused the minutes of meeting, Annexure R-4, dated 16.4.2013, this court finds no force in the submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioners, because, if the minutes of meeting of the Expert Committee are read in their entirety, they clearly reveal that the State of Himachal Pradesh nowhere granted benefit of pay revision to the category of petitioners with effect from 1.5.2013 on the basis of judgment rendered by High Court of Punjab and Haryana, rather, it after having taken note of detailed note presented to it, observed that though always there has been parity in the pay scales given to the Senior Laboratory Technician in Health and Family Welfare Department with that of Senior Laboratory Technician in Punjab, prior to judgment passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana but State of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow Punjab pay scales revised/granted from back dates, on the basis of judgment passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Expert Committee has specifically recorded in its finding that the parity/pay scales granted to Senior Laboratory Technician cannot be accepted in its totality and there is no cadre of Chief Laboratory Technician in the Health Department in Punjab.

30. Petitioners may be right in contending that the duties and responsibilities of the category of Senior Laboratory Technicians are same since the very beginning, however, promotional avenue for the post of Senior Laboratory Technician in the State of Himachal Pradesh is Chief Laboratory Technician, which category is at the top in the hierarchy and supervisory category of petitioners. Leaving everything aside, as has been noticed herein above, in the State of Punjab, there exist three categories of laboratory technicians in different pay scales i.e. Medical Laboratory Technician Grade-I, Medical Laboratory Technician Grade-II and Senior Laboratory Technician in different pay scales, whereas, in the State of Himachal Pradesh there exists only one category i.e. laboratory technician which now stands redesignated as Senior Laboratory Technician with effect from 24.1.1981.

31. In an order passed in case titled Punjab State Power Corporation Limited v. Rajesh Kumar Jindal and others, (2019) 3 SCC 547, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that following factors are to be kept in view, while fixing pay structure viz. (i) method of recruitment; (ii) level at which recruitment is made; (iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre; (iv) minimum educational/technical qualifications required; (v) avenues of promotion; (vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities; and (vii) employer's capacity to pay, etc.

32. Hon'ble Apex Court, while detailing factors as detailed herein above, categorically held that the burden of proof is on the person claiming parity. Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

"20. Burden of proof on the person claiming parity of pay scale:-Ordinarily, the scale of pay is fixed keeping in view the several factors i.e. (i) method of recruitment; (ii) level at which recruitment is made; (iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre; (iv) minimum educational/technical qualifications required; (v) avenues of promotion; (vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities; and (vii) employer's capacity to pay, etc.

21. It is well settled that for considering the equation of posts and the issue of equivalence of posts, the following factors had been held to be determinative:-

(i) The nature and duties of a post;

(ii) The responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding a post, the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged;

(iii) The minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; and

(iv) The salary of the post (vide Union of India and Another v. P.K. Roy and Others AIR 1968 SC 850).

33. In Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. Thana Singh and others, (2019) 4 SCC 113, Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is the domain of the employer to classify its employees/posts on the basis of qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the posts concerned and to prescribe different pay scales accordingly. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would get attracted only if there is discrimination between same set of employees and not otherwise and to prove this discrimination, burden will be on the person claiming parity, who has to discharge it by producing material before the court. Determination of parity or disparity in duties and responsibilities is a complex issue and same should be left to the expert body. Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the judgment supra as under:

19. The appellant-Board being an autonomous body governed by its own regulations, it was for the Board to classify its employees/posts on the basis of qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the posts concerned. If the classification has reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved, the Board would be justified in prescribing different pay scales. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would be applicable only when a discrimination is made out between the persons who are similarly situated and not otherwise. It is the duty of an employee seeking parity of pay to prove and establish that they have been discriminated. In State of Haryana and Another v. Tilak Raj and Others (2003) 6 SCC 123, this Court held that

"11.....to claim a relief on the basis of equality, it is for the claimants to substantiate a clear-cut basis of equivalence and a resultant hostile discrimination before becoming eligible to claim rights on a par with the other group vis-à-vis an alleged discrimination."

20. Burden of establishing parity in pay scale and employment is on the person claiming such right. There were neither pleadings nor any material produced by the respondents to prove that the nature of work performed by the Sub Fire Officers is similar with that of the Head Clerks and the Internal Auditors to claim parity of pay scale. As pointed out earlier, the burden lies upon the party who claims parity of pay scale to prove similarity in duties and responsibilities. In the writ petition, respondents have only claimed parity of pay scale with those of the employees working under the Punjab Government which was not accepted by the learned Single Judge. Determination of parity or disparity in duties and responsibilities is a complex issue and the same should be left to the expert body. When the expert body considered revision of pay for various posts, it did not revise the pay scale of Sub Fire Officers. When the expert body has taken such a view, it is not for the courts to substitute its views and interfere with the same and take a different view."

34. Since the petitioners have failed to establish on record that the factors required to be considered, while fixing pay scales, were not examined by the respondents and they were performing similar duties as are/were being performed by their counterparts, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while not acceding to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for grant of revised pay scales with effect from 1978. State being competent authority has already granted revised pay scales as was being claimed by the petitioners with effect from 1.5.2013, as is being received by their counterparts in the State of Punjab. No doubt, aforesaid benefit came to be accorded to the category of laboratory technicians in the State of Punjab with effect from 1978 but definitely, State of Himachal Pradesh is/was not bound by the decision rendered by High Court of Punjab and Haryana, whereby State of Punjab came to be specifically directed to give pay revised from 1978.

35. Since the State of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow each and every change brought in the rules and regulations in other States, its action inasmuch as granting grade pay of Rs. 4800/- is a measure personnel to them with effect from 1.5.2013, cannot be said to be bad in law.

36. Though Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners herein may be granted said revision from 1978 on notional basis and thereafter on actual basis with effect from 1.5.2013 but since it is the exclusive domain of the State Government to decide the pay scales and State, in its wisdom has already decided to give said benefit to the category of the petitioners with effect from 1.5.2013, any intervention of this Court at this stage would not only lead to multiplicity of litigation but would also cause heavy financial burden upon State exchequer.

37. Recently, Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Ex Servicemen Movement & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 419 of 2016, decided on 16.3.2022, commonly known as "One Rank One Pension" case has held that the executive is therefore, well within its limits to prescribe a policy keeping in view the financial implications. Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment supra held as under:

"40. As opposed to the factual matrix in Nakara (supra), where the liberalised pension scheme was not made applicable to employees who had retired prior to the cut-off date, in this case the OROP principle is applicable to all retired army personnel, irrespective of the date of retirement. The cut-off date is only prescribed for determining the base salary used for computing the pension. While for those who retired on or after 2014, the last drawn salary is used for computing the pension; for those who retired prior to 2014, the average of the salary drawn in 2013 is used. This policy only seeks to protect those who retired before 2014 since the last drawn salary of the prior retirees might be too low and incomparable to the pay of the 2014 retirees. Moreover, if the maximum salary drawn is to be used as the base value instead of taking the average salary, an additional outlay of Rs. 1,45,339.34 crores would be incurred. The executive is therefore, well within its limits to prescribe a policy keeping in view the financial implications."

38. Otherwise also, by way of an additional affidavit filed on 24.3.2022 the respondent-State has placed on record copy of letter dated 5.1.2022 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) to the office of Advocate General, whereby it has been conveyed that the Government has decided to pay grade pay of Rs. 4800/- to the category of petitioner with effect from 1.5.2013 and as such, the grievance of the petitioners stands resolved, inasmuch the desired grade pay/pay scale has been paid to them.

39. In view of the various judgments taken note herein above, the State of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow every change brought about in the rules and regulations of the State of Punjab, as such, petitioners cannot seek a direction from this Court to extend the benefit of revision of pay scales, which otherwise has been granted by the respondents with effect from 1.5.2013, from back date i.e. 1.1.1978.

40. In view of detailed discussion made herein above, all the petitions are dismissed to the extent revision of pay scale has been sought from back date and to the extent, pay revision has been granted by the respondents with effect from 1.5.2013, the petitions are allowed/disposed of.

Pending applications, if any, in all the petitions stand disposed of.