Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttarakhand & Others ... vs Munna Lal & Others on 27 February, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
2026:UHC:1451-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PANKAJ PUROHIT
Special Appeal No. 82 of 2023
State of Uttarakhand & others --Appellants.
Versus
Munna Lal & others --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sushil Vashisth, Standing Counsel for the
State/appellant.
Ms. Swati Verma, Advocate for the respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)
1. Delay of 392 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Delay Condonation Application (IA/1/2023) stands disposed of.
2. This intra-court appeal is filed by State of Uttarakhand and others, challenging judgment and order dated 21.02.2022, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 422 of 2017. By the said judgment, State authorities were directed to pay minimum of pay scale to the writ petitioners for the posts against which they were discharging their duties. Operative portion of the impugned judgment is reproduced below:-
"6. In that eventuality, this writ petition is disposed of by issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to the respective principles of the different government institutions in which the petitioners are appointed as Sweepers and Chaukidars respectively, and the respondents are directed to maintain the parity of scale and pay minimum of pay scale, as admissible to the respective post which is being held by them as against which they are discharging their services. It is expected by this Court that the principles of the respective government 1 2026:UHC:1451-DB institutions, will ensure the remittance of equal pay to the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment."
3. Learned State Counsel submits that writ petitioners were not engaged by the Principal or the authorities of Education Department of the State, but, they were engaged by Parent Teacher Association (PTA) and their remuneration was also being paid by the Parent Teacher Association from its own source.
4. In respect of this submission, learned State Counsel has drawn attention of this Court to para No. 9 of the counter affidavit, filed by Mr. Chandra Mohan Mamgai on behalf of respondent no. 4. Para No. 9 of the counter affidavit is reproduced below:-
"9. That the contents of para 5 of the writ petition are wrong and denied. It is submitted that the petitioner was engaged purely on temporary basis for short period as voluntary Chowkidar and was engaged by the PTA and was paid remuneration by the PTA itself."
5. Learned State Counsel submits that learned Single Judge has not considered the contention made by the Principal of the concerned institution, as made in para 9 of the counter affidavit, and there is nothing to indicate in the impugned judgment that learned Single Judge had examined the issue as to whether persons engaged through Parent Teacher Association are also entitled to pay parity with regular Government servants.
6. Ms. Swati Verma, learned counsel appearing for respondents did not dispute the submission made by learned State Counsel that respondents were engaged by Parent Teacher Association. Thus, it is an admitted position that writ petitioners/respondents were not 2 2026:UHC:1451-DB employed by State authorities and they were employees of Parent Teacher Association, therefore, State of Uttarakhand cannot be held liable for paying minimum of pay scale or for maintaining pay parity with government servant serving against Group-D post. Thus the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside.
7. The Special Appeal is allowed.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents produced in Court an advertisement issued by outsourcing agency, whereby applications were invited for engagement through outsourcing against 2364 posts in School Education Department in Group-D category. She submits that respondents are not able to apply in response to the said advertisement, as they have become overage after rendering more than 10 years of service in Government Institutions. She submitted that relaxation in age be given to respondents so that their right to be considered for engagement through outsourcing, may at least be protected.
9. Having regard to the fact that respondents have rendered continuous satisfactory service for more than 10 years in Government Inter College, we provide that claim of respondents shall be considered for engagement through outsourcing on merit, by excluding the period they served in Government Institution while determining their age.
10. State Counsel shall communicate this order to the Director, Secondary Education today itself so that 3 2026:UHC:1451-DB applications, if made by respondents, may not be rejected on the ground that they have crossed the upper age limit.
______________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
________________________ PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.
Dt: 27th February, 2026 Mahinder Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2026.02.27 20:17:17 +05'30' 4