States are not legally bound to match pay scales of other States regardless of historical parity.

The petitioners were appointed as Weaving Master, Weaving Instructor, and Carpenter Master (later re-designated as Junior Technicians) in the Prisons Department of Himachal Pradesh

They sought a pay scale revision from Rs. 950-1800 to Rs. 3330-6200 (the scale adopted by the Punjab Government for Technical Masters) w.e.f. 01.01.1996, instead of the Rs. 3120-5150 scale granted by the Himachal Pradesh Government

The petitioners contended that since the State of Himachal Pradesh generally follows the "Punjab pattern" of pay scales, they were entitled to parity

Although the Director of Prisons (Respondent No. 2) recommended the revision, the State Government (Respondent No. 1) did not notify the higher scale

The State argued that pay scales are determined by its own rules, recruitment methods, and financial resources, and it is not legally bound to follow Punjab

1. Whether the State of Himachal Pradesh is legally bound to follow the pay scales adopted by the Punjab Government for similar categories of employees

2. Whether the Court can exercise the power of judicial review to direct the Government to grant a specific pay scale

3. Whether internal departmental recommendations/notings recommending a pay scale constitute a binding decision of the Government

The Court relied on the principle that the determination of service conditions and pay scales is an executive prerogative within the exclusive domain of the State

It applied the precedent from State of Himachal Pradesh v. P.D. Attri (1999) 3 SCC 217, which held that one State is not bound by the rules or pay scales of another State, even if it had historically followed that pattern

The Court cited Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association (2023) 19 SCC 482, establishing that equation of posts and salaries is a complex matter for expert bodies (like Pay Commissions) and not the judiciary, and that departmental notings are merely expressions of opinion, not final Government decisions

The Court reasoned that Himachal Pradesh has its own Recruitment and Promotion Rules and operates as a distinct constitutional entity; therefore, it is not mandatory for it to mirror every change made by the Punjab Government

The Judge observed that pay fixation involves evaluating numerous factors, including educational qualifications, nature of work, and financial capacity, which are best handled by executive experts rather than the Court

Regarding the petitioners' reliance on the recommendations made by Respondent No. 2, the Court held that such internal communications do not create a legal right or represent a final decision of the State Government

Since the petitioners failed to prove a violation of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution, the Court found no grounds for interference

The Court affirmed that pay scale determination is a policy matter for the executive, and judicial intervention is only warranted in cases of patent arbitrariness or constitutional violation, neither of which was present here

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly