IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

203 CWP-4576-2000 (O&M)

Date of Decision:- 06.08.2026

Versus

State of Haryana and others ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Mr. Suneel Ranga, DAG, Haryana.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J .

Department, Haryana from 1.1.96 as given to the Patwaris working in Revenue

Department.

2. Brief facts in chronological order are as follows: -

said post.

CWP-4576-2000 (O&M) - 2 -

Course and passed the same.

recommended by respondent No. 4/Director Land Records to respondent No. 3

Director Panchayat Department, for appointment as Patwaris.

Development and Panchayat Officer in the Panchayat Department. On their

effect from 01.01.1985. At that stage, persons working in the Revenue

01.01.1986: Subsequently, pay scale of Rs. 400-660 was revised to Rs. 950-

as well as Patwaris working in the Revenue Department were placed in the pay

scale of Rs.950-1500.

well as Patwaris working in the Revenue Department were placed in the pay

scale of Rs. 3050-4590.

07.08.1998: Therea
Ler, another revision of pay scale took place in the year 1998

and pay scales of the Patwaris working in the Revenue Department were revised

CWP-4576-2000 (O&M) - 3 -

from Rs. 3050-4590 to Rs. 4000-6000 with effect from 01.01.1996, vide

above, only pay scales of Patwaris working in the Revenue Department were

P-3) in the year 1998 to the Director Panchayat, Haryana, Chandigarh.

Director Panchayat, Haryana, seeking grant of same pay scale being given to the

Patwaris in the Revenue Department.

Department. However, it was subsequently discovered that the said request had

been declined by the Finance Department.

23.05.2022: Subsequently, vide order dated 23.05.2022, the present writ

to the Patwaris working in the Revenue Department.

CWP-4576-2000 (O&M) - 4 -

to have lost interest in pursuing the same.

4. In any case, it appears that even on merits, claim of the

para No.1 of the reply, which is reproduced herein below for ready

reference:-

who are working as Patwaris in the Panchayat

Department Haryana are claiming pay scale of

Rs.4000-6000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 at par with the

Patwaris working in the Revenue Department. In this

were appointed in the pay scale of Rs.400-10- 490/540-

15-600-EB-20-660 with usual allowances. The pay scale

was subsequently revised to Rs.950- 1500 and Rs.

Government has revised the pay scale of Patwaris

working in Revenue Department and has given them

the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The

Department, for pay at par with Revenue Patwaris was

CWP-4576-2000 (O&M) - 5 -

Patwaris are of ardous nature and very different from

Panchayat Department. Patwaris of these two

Departments are govered by separate set of statutory

working in the Development and Panchayat and

Revenue Department are different. Thus, the

6000.”

5. I am in agreement with the stand taken by the respondents as

the same.

6. In view of the aforesaid, no grounds are made out to interfere.

7. Dismissed. “

CW-129 of 2025 seeking review of the said order dated 23.05.2022. Vide order

this Court today.

CWP-4576-2000 (O&M) - 6 -

Patwar Training conducted by the respondents and their names were

who were working in the Panchayat Department as well as the Patwaris working

in the Revenue Department were subsequently placed in the pay scale of

the pay scale drawn by the Patwaris whether in the Revenue Department or in

the Panchayat Department.

the pay scale of the Patwaris working in the Revenue Department was revised

from Rs. 3050-4590 to Rs. 4000-6000. Ld. counsel submits that grievance of the

Department, no revision was effected; and only Patwaris working in the Revenue

and could not have been treated differently in the subsequent revision of pay

CWP-4576-2000 (O&M) - 7 -

scale, especially in view of the fact that right since the beginning in 1985,

and the Patwaris working in the Revenue Department were treated similarly.

Patwaris working in both the departments i.e., the Panchayat and the Revenue

could not have been made.

working in the Revenue Department, who were treated alike in the past. It is

Revenue Department

is also arbitrary and discriminatory because some persons selected alongwith

Revenue Department subsequently. One such example is that of Ramesh

CWP-4576-2000 (O&M) - 8 -

scale being given to the Patwaris in the Revenue Department i.e. 4000-6000

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. U.P. Sales Tax Officers Grade II

U.P. Pay Commission Trade Tax Officers were carrying pay scale at

par with other District Level Officers in other department of the

State - Revised pay scale granted to trade Tax Officer is a step below

to that of District Level Officer - Held that it is per se discriminatory -

to pay scales at par with other District Level Officers.”

10. Learned counsel also relies upon judgment of this Court in CWP-

others. The relevant para is as follows:-

“(17). The State has not been able to furnish any convincing

of Superintendents in the six favoured offices. The general

CWP-4576-2000 (O&M) - 9 -

Superintendents are inter-transferable inter se between

scale for only a segment of the same cadre and same nomenclature,

leaving the rest of the Superintendents to draw a grade pay of

Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 and its progeny,

which recognise "equal pay for equal work" as enforceable where

unequals are not shown.”

01.01.1996 as given to the Patwaris working in the Revenue Department. The

of Revenue Department or they may also be transferred and appointed in the

12. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed

taken to revise the pay scales of the Revenue Patwaris as it was found that the

CWP-4576-2000 (O&M) - 10 -

only have to cater to their village; whereas the Revenue Patwaris have to

maintain voluminous land records of several villages. It is accordingly prayed

13. No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the

working in the Development and Panchayat Department. It has also been

pointed out that Patwaris of these two Departments are governed by separate

Development and Panchayat and Revenue Department are different. Thus, the

Rs.4000-6000.

15. In this regard reference may be made to judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Mewa Ram Kanojia vs. AIIMS, 1989, SCC, 235 wherein it has

carry equal pay scale depends upon several factors. It does not just depend

CWP-4576-2000 (O&M) - 11 -

bodies like the Pay Commission. This Court should not interfere with such

16. Reference may also be made to another judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others vs. J.P. Chorasia and others 1989 1

to be the same or similar but there may be difference in the degree in the

different, that could not be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits

17. In case of Secretary of Finance Department and others vs. West

the judiciary and therefore ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job

was observed that ordinarily a pay structure is evolved keeping in mind several

CWP-4576-2000 (O&M) - 12 -

factors i.e. (i) method of recruitment (ii) level at which recruitment is made (iii)

carefully balanced keeping in mind the hierarchical arrangements, avenues for

disturbed as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other

cadres.

West Bengal and another vs. West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors

principle "equal pay for equal work" is not a fundamental right but

CWP-4576-2000 (O&M) - 13 -

the employees claiming parity vide State of U.P. v. Ministerial

Karamchari Sangh, 1997(4) S.C.T. 769: (1998) 1 SCC 422; Associate

790: (1998) 1 SCC 428; State of Haryana & Anr. v. Haryana Civil

SCC 72; State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj, 2003(4) S.C.T. 485: (2003) 6

SCC 123; S.S. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand [2007 (8) SCC 299]:

670: 2009 (2) SCC 606.

16. What is significant in this case is that parity is claimed by

Inspectors- AMW, by seeking extension of the pay scale applicable

and KGO-JLRO (Revenue Officers) not on the basis that the holders

Inspectors-AMW. On the other hand, the relief was claimed on the

ground that prior to RPA Rules 1981, the posts in the said three

reference categories, and Inspectors-AMW were all in the same pay

scale (Pay Scale No. 9), and that under RPA Rules 1981, those other

three categories have been given a higher Pay Scale of No. 11, while

the ground that subject post and reference category posts carried

that as the subject post holders and the holders of reference

CWP-4576-2000 (O&M) - 14 -

category posts who were enjoying equal pay at an earlier point of

revision. In other words, the parity claimed was not on the basis of

equal pay for equal work, but on the basis of previous equal pay.

the basis that earlier the subject post and the reference category

posts were carrying the same scale of pay. In fact, one of the

deserve a higher scale of pay than what was earlier being enjoyed

higher scale to those categories of posts. The Pay Commission has

revised pay scales corresponding to the pre-revised pay scales and,

were carrying the same pay scale does not mean that a
Ler the

is considered as having a lesser pay scale may be assigned a higher

pay scale and another post which is considered to have a proper

pay scale may merely be assigned the corresponding revised pay

scale but not any higher pay scale. Therefore, the benefit of higher

pay scale can only be claimed by establishing that holders of the

subject post and holders of reference category posts, discharge

respondents have neither pleaded nor proved that the holders of

CWP-4576-2000 (O&M) - 15 -

(Panchayat) and KGO-JLRO (Revenue Officers) were discharging

been granted. In fact, that is why the learned single Judge rightly

held that whether the posts were equivalent and whether there

expert bodies and the remedy of the respondent was to give a

grant any specific scale of pay to them.”

Kapoor and others vs. State of Haryana.

Supreme Court will prevail.

( NIDHI GUPTA )

06.08.2026 JUDGE

Neelam

Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No

Whether Reportable Yes / No