STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANR. versus TILAK RAJ

Citation: [2014] 7 S.C.R. 598 · Decided: 01-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 598 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANR. 
v. 
TILAK RAJ 
(Civil Appeal No. 9124 of 2014) 
SEPTEMBER 1, 2014 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND UDAY UMESH LAUT, JJ.] 
Service Law - Pay - Pay scales - Claim for pay scale as 
paid to persons belonging to higher cadre - Allowed by High 
C Court - Propriety - Held: Not proper - High Court should not 
have entertained the petitions where disputed questions of fact 
were required to be examined - Without examining relevant 
evidence regarding exact nature of work, working conditions 
and other relevant factors, normally such exercise should not 
D have been carried out by the High Court under its writ 
jurisdiction - Relevant exercise was not carried out by the High 
Court in the instant case. 
Service Law - Pay - Pay scales - Fixation of - Held: 
E Should be left to an expert body like Pay Commission or 
other similar body. 
By virtue of the impugned judgments, the State of 
Himachal Pradesh was directed to give higher pay scale 
to the respondents -Laboratory Attendants, who had filed 
F 
petitions claiming higher pay scale on the ground that in 
the case of Madan Gopal, the persons who. had been 
similarly situated, had been given higher pay scale. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:1.1. The respondents had prayed for pay scale 
which was being given to persons holding a promotional 
post (Laboratory Assistant) by contending that the nature 
of work was similar. However, the posts of Laboratory 
598 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. TILAK RAJ 
599 
Attendant and Laboratory Assistant are different and 
A 
therefore, the respondents could not have been paid pay 
scale which was being paid to the persons belonging to 
a higher cadre. [Para 21] [604-A-C] 
1.2. The High Court should not have entertained the · 8 
petitions where disputed questions of fact were required 
to be examined. Without examining relevant evidence 
regarding exact nature of work, working conditions and 
other relevant factors, it is not possible to come to a 
conclusion with regard to similarity in the nature of work 
done by persons belonging to different cadres and 
C 
normally such exercise should not be carried out by the 
High Court under its writ jurisdiction. It is settled law that 
the work of fixing pay scale is left to an expert body like 
Pay Commission or other similar body. Moreover, 
qualifications, experience, etc. are also required to be 
D 
examined before fixing pay scales. Such an exercise was 
not carried out in this case by the High Court. [Para 22] 
[604-G-H; 605-A-B] 
S. C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand (2007) 8 SCC 279: 
E 
2007 (9) SCR 130 - relied on. 
Madan Gopal v. State of H.P., C. WP. (T) No. 2346 of 
2008; Director General of Police and others v. Mrityunjoy 
Sarkar and others AIR 1997 SC 249: 1996 (3) SCR 530 -
referred to. 
· F 
Case Law Reference: 
C.W.P. (T) No.2346 of 2008 
referred to 
Para 3 
1996 (3) SCR 530 
Referred to Para 7 
G 
2007 (9) SCR 130 
Relied on 
Para 22 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
9124 of 2014. 
H. 
A 
600 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014) 7 S.C.R. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 9125, 9126, 9127, 9128, 9129, 9131 and 9133-
9138 of 2014. 
,., 
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.05.2010 in CWP 
B n,No. 1862 of 2010 of the High Court of H.P. at Shimla. 
c 
Pragati Neekhra, Himinder Lal, Vikas Mahajan, Vinod 
Sharma Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni, for the Appellants. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ANIL R. DAVE, J 1. Leave granted. 
2. Being aggrieved by the Judgment delivered in 
C.W.P.No.1862 of 2010 and other judgments by the High Court 
of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, these appeals have been filed 
by the State of Himachal Pradesh. Issues involved in all these 
0 appeals are almost same and therefore, all these appeals have 
been heard together. 
3. By virtue of the impugned judgments, the State of 
Himachal Pradesh has been directed to give higher pay scale 
to the respondents -original petitioners, who had filed petitions 
E claiming higher pay scale on the ground that in the case of 
Madan Gopal v. State of H.P., C.W.P. (T) No.2346 of 2008, 
the persons who had been similarly situated, had been given 
higher pay scale. 
4. The aforesaid submission was accepted by the High 
F Court and all the petitions filed by the present respondents had 
been allowed mainly on the ground that similarly situated 
persons, namely Madan Gopal and others had been given 
higher pay scale by the High Court. 
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appella
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.