Voluntary Adoption of a Foreign Pay-Pattern Does Not Create an Enforceable Right to Parity

Commentary on Sudhir Dhiman & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
(2025 HHC 28289, decided 21 Aug 2025)

1. Introduction

The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision in Sudhir Dhiman & Ors. v. State of HP consolidates two writ petitions filed by (i) the Himachal Pradesh Polytechnic Teachers Welfare Association and (ii) a group of individual polytechnic lecturers. The petitioners challenged the State’s refusal to grant them either:

• the AICTE-recommended pay scales endorsed by the 5^th Punjab Pay Commission; or
• at the least, the lesser but still beneficial Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme (DACPS) – the “four-tier” pay scales – subsequently made available to their counterparts in Punjab.

The core question was whether Himachal Pradesh, having historically modelled its pay structure on Punjab’s, was legally obligated to mirror every subsequent change adopted in Punjab. Justice Satyen Vaidya answered in the negative, laying down a clear principle: a State’s mere practice of following another State’s pay pattern does not confer a vested, enforceable right on its employees to claim automatic parity.

2. Summary of the Judgment

1. The Court dismissed both petitions. 2. It held that:

• Policy decisions on pay structure fall within the exclusive domain of the State executive.
• Himachal Pradesh is not bound to adopt every pay-related decision taken in Punjab, even if it has historically followed the Punjab pattern.
• The Council of Ministers examined the financial impact and hierarchical repercussions before rejecting the lecturers’ case; the decision-making process was not arbitrary, irrational or discriminatory.

Accordingly, no violation of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution was made out, and the writ petitions failed.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

1. State of HP v. P.D. Attri, (1999) 3 SCC 217 – Recognised each State’s autonomy in service conditions; no compulsion to follow another State’s rules.
2. Shiba Kumar Dutta v. UOI, (1997) 3 SCC 545 – Courts should defer to expert bodies on pay fixation unless action is palpably arbitrary.
3. P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad, (2003) 2 SCC 632 – Government’s prerogative to create/abolish posts and modify eligibility or pay scales.
4. Secretary, Mahatma Gandhi Mission v. Bharatiya Kamgar Sena, (2017) 4 SCC 449 – Central Government pay decisions do not bind States; analogy extended here to inter-State context.
5. Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation v. G.S. Uppal, (2008) 7 SCC 375 – Relied on by petitioners; distinguished by the Court because it concerned internal parity between deputationists and direct employees within the same establishment.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Justice Vaidya’s reasoning follows a three-step structure:

1. Doctrine of State Autonomy in Service Matters – Articles 162 & 309 empower each State to determine its own service conditions. – Adoption of an external pay pattern is an executive policy; policy does not crystallise into a binding rule unless codified.
2. Judicial Review Limited to Process, Not Merits – The Court examined whether the Council of Ministers’ decision was taken after considering relevant factors (financial burden, hierarchical imbalance). – Finding no mala fides or non-application of mind, it refused to substitute its view.
3. No Proven Discrimination – Differential treatment vis-à-vis State Forest Service justified because the services are functionally different and the State rationally prioritised one over the other. – Equality under Articles 14 & 16 requires comparability; lecturers and forest officers are not similarly situated.

3.3 Likely Impact

• Precedential Value: Confirms that parallel adoption of pay structures does not fossilise into a legal obligation. Advocates will face a higher threshold when pleading “historical parity”.
• Administrative Flexibility: Empowers States to deviate from the parent-State model when fiscal or structural conditions so demand, without fearing successful writ challenges.
• Litigation Strategy: Future petitioners must attack the decision-making process (procedural impropriety, irrelevant considerations) rather than claim a substantive right to parity.
• Sectoral Effect (Technical Education): Unless legislatively reversed, polytechnic faculty in HP will remain on the existing pay band; AICTE parity must now come through political or collective bargaining channels.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Four-Tier Pay Scale / DACPS: A career-progression matrix that automatically upgrades an employee’s pay at four stages (entry, 9^th, 14^th, 20^th year) without requiring a change in post. Less generous than full AICTE parity but better than stagnation.
• AICTE Recommendations: Nationally prescribed qualifications and pay norms for technical educators, intended to assure uniform standards and facilitate accreditation.
• Pay Commission: Expert body (State or Central) that reviews economic data and recommends periodic pay revisions, typically every 10 years.
• Articles 14 & 16: Constitutional provisions guaranteeing equality before law and equality of opportunity in public employment; disparity is permissible if based on an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the objective.
• Council of Ministers (State Cabinet): The constitutional body competent to decide policy matters such as pay scales; courts review only for legality and rationality, not desirability.

5. Conclusion

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has drawn a bright line between policy practice and legal right. Even prolonged adherence to another State’s pay structure does not estop the adopting State from revising or withdrawing that practice. Unless a statutory rule or constitutional guarantee is violated, courts will not mandate parity merely because a comparator exists elsewhere. The decision reinforces judicial restraint in pay-fixation matters and signals to government employees that avenues for enhanced pay are primarily legislative or executive, not judicial.