Pay Scale Fixation Falls Within Executive Domain: Uttarakhand High Court Refuses To Interfere With Health Workers' Grade Pay Policy

The Court held that fixation of pay involves consideration of several administrative and financial factors which are best left to the executive and expert bodies rather than constitutional courts.

The Court was dealing with a batch of writ petitions filed by Health Workers challenging the validity of the Government Order and the Recruitment Rules prescribing Grade Pay of ₹2,000 for Health Workers appointed after 2013, while employees covered by an earlier judgment continued to receive Grade Pay of ₹2,800 as personal pay.

A Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari observed: "Interference with the decision taken by State Government would not be proper in view of the law declared by Apex Court that determination of pay scales is primary function of the executive and while exercising power of judicial review, Courts should not enter upon the task of fixation of pay."

C.D. Bahuguna & K.P. Upadhyay, Senior Advocates, appeared on behalf of the petitioners, while Narayan Dutt, Standing Counsel, represented the respondents.

Background

The petitioners, who were appointed as Health Workers in the Medical and Health Department pursuant to different recruitment exercises conducted after 2013, challenged the Government policy prescribing Grade Pay of ₹2,000 for future appointees.

They contended that although they possessed the same qualifications and discharged duties identical to Health Workers appointed before 2013, the latter continued to receive Grade Pay of ₹2,800. The petitioners, therefore, sought parity in grade pay, alleging a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The State opposed the petitions, contending that the higher Grade Pay of ₹2,800 had been granted only as personal pay to employees covered by an earlier judgment of the Allahabad High Court and that future appointees were consciously placed in the lower grade, keeping in view financial implications and the need to maintain a distinction between the feeder post of Health Worker and the promotional post of Health Supervisor.

Court's Observations

The Court examined the challenge to the Government Order and the Recruitment Rules in the light of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work and the settled principles governing judicial review of pay fixation.

The Bench noted that the higher Grade Pay of ₹2,800 was not the regular pay scale attached to the post of Health Worker but was granted as personal pay only to a limited category of employees pursuant to an earlier judicial decision.

The Court held that the petitioners, who entered service after issuance of the Government Order and accepted appointment with full knowledge of the applicable pay scale, could not claim parity merely because some existing employees continued to receive personal pay.

Referring to State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. R.D. Sharma (2022), the Court highlighted: "It may be noted that this Court has consistently held that the equation of post and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and therefore ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions. This is because such job evaluation exercise may include various factors including the relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of employees, and such evaluation would be both difficult and time consuming, apart from carrying financial implications. Therefore, it has always been held to be more prudent to leave such task of equation of post and determination of pay scales to be best left to an expert body. Unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post, and that the court's interference was absolutely necessary to undo the injustice, the courts would not interfere with such complex issues."

The Court further relied upon the Supreme Court's observations in S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand (2007) and observed: "Fixation of pay scale is a delicate mechanism which requires various considerations including financial capacity, responsibility, educational qualification, mode of appointment, etc. and it has a cascading effect. Hence, in subsequent decisions of this Court the principle of equal pay for equal work has been considerably watered down, and it has hardly ever been applied by this Court in recent years."

On the scope of judicial review, the Court referred to the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers and reproduced the Supreme Court's observations: "The Constitution does not permit the court to direct or advise the executive in matters of policy or to sermonise qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of legislature or executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory powers."

The Court further observed that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work cannot be mechanically invoked and noted the Supreme Court's clarification that: "In our opinion fixing pay scales by courts by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work upsets the high constitutional principle of separation of powers between the three organs of the State. Realising this, this Court has in recent years avoided applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, unless there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups (and there too the matter should be sent for examination by an Expert Committee appointed by the Government instead of the court itself granting higher pay)."

The Bench also reiterated: "It is well settled by the Supreme Court that only because the nature of work is the same, irrespective of educational qualification, mode of appointment, experience and other relevant factors, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply."

Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the Government had assigned valid reasons for maintaining separate treatment for employees covered by the earlier judgment and those appointed thereafter. It held that no arbitrariness or constitutional infirmity had been demonstrated, warranting interference with the executive policy regarding pay fixation.

Conclusion

Holding that the petitioners had accepted appointment against posts carrying Grade Pay of ₹2,000 with full knowledge of the applicable service conditions and could not subsequently claim parity with employees who were granted higher Grade Pay as personal pay pursuant to an earlier judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the batch of writ petitions.

The Court observed that the petitioners had participated in the recruitment process after the State had already revised the pay structure and accepted appointments in the notified pay scale without objection. The Bench held:

"After applying for the post of Health Worker pursuant to the advertisement, in which pay scale was mentioned and after having accepted offer of appointment in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200, Grade Pay Rs. 2000/-, claim staked by petitioners for Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/-, is unsustainable."

Accordingly, the Court concluded: "Thus, the reliefs claimed by petitioners cannot be granted. Writ petitions fail and are dismissed."

Cause Title: Sudha Pandey & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:UHC:4898)

Appearances

Petitioners: C.D. Bahuguna, Senior Advocate, assisted by Chandra Shekhar Dalakoti, Advocate; K.P. Upadhyay, Senior Advocate, assisted by Paritosh Dalakoti, Advocate; Dinesh Gahatori, Vandana Singh Mehra and Deep Prakash Bhatt, Advocates.

Respondents: Narayan Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State.

Click here to read/download the Judgment