Uttarakhand High Court
Bachan Singh Gusain And Others ... ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 9 December, 2021
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1520 of 2021
Bachan Singh Gusain and others ... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ... Respondents
With
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1530 of 2021
Raj Kumar and others ... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ... Respondents
With
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1531 of 2021
Renuka Devi and others ... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ... Respondents
With
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1542 of 2021
Hemanti Mehta and others ... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ... Respondents
Advocates : Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate, for the petitioners
Mr. Sushil Vashisth, Standing Counsel, for the State
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
These are the four writ petitions, which engage
consideration of common questions of fact and law. Primarily,
WPSS No. 1520 of 2021 and WPSS No. 1530 of 2021 pertain to
the Garhwal Mandal and WPSS No. 1531 of 2021 and WPSS No.
1542 of 2021, relate to Kumaon Mandal.
2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have sought a writ of
mandamus, commanding the respondents to forthwith grant them
promotional pay scale of Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- from the due
date, the respective details of which, are given in the respective
writ petitions and also to quash the communication dated 30th
March 2021.
3. The petitioners have come up with the case with an
identical issue, where the matter was earlier agitated before this
Court in a bunch of writ petitions, which were decided by a
coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 11th April
2017, with leading writ petition, being Writ Petition (S/S) No.
602 of 2014, Deep Chandra Badhani and others Vs. State of
Uttarakhand and others.
4. While allowing the writ petitions, a writ of mandamus was
issued by the Court whereby respondents were directed to
consider the case of the petitioners for the grant of selection
grade in view of the Government Order dated 22nd February
2010, and also to extend the benefits to the similarly situate
persons, who had been granted the same benefits in other
districts, within a period of ten weeks from the date of the order
after counting the services of the petitioners which was rendered
by them for the period specified therein.
5. The said judgement was later on also followed by the
coordinate Benches of this Court in other writ petitions. The
judgment was put to challenge in a Special Appeal being Special
Appeal No. 169 of 2018, State of Uttarakhand and others Vs.
Deep Chandra Badhani and others and the Division Bunch of
this Court, vide its judgement dated 20th September 2018, had
affirmed the judgement of the learned Single Judge and the
Special Appeal was dismissed by the aforesaid judgement.
6. Giving challenge to the Division Bench judgement, the
State had preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary
No(s). 12720/2019, The State of Uttarakhand and others Vs.
Sadanand Bhatt & Others. Later on, the Hon'ble Apex Court,
vide its judgement dated 9th May 2019, had dismissed the
Special Leave Petition and as a consequence thereto, has affirmed
the judgement of learned Single Judge, which ultimately
culminated into the judgement of the Division Bench dated 20th
September 2018.
7. It's not only that, thereafter, based on the same principal as
enshrined in the judgement dated 11th April 2017, several other
matters were dealt with by the other coordinate Benches of this
Court, for example, in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1881 of 2019,
which was decided by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 10th
October 2019, based on the earlier judgement which was
rendered by the Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, in Writ
Petition (S/S) No. 150 of 2021, Daleep Singh Gariya and others
Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, as decided by the coordinate
Bench of this Court on 15th January 2021 and yet another
judgement of which a reference has been made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, that is of the judgement, which was
rendered by me in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 679 of 2021, Anant
Ram Chanyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand.
8. When the matter was taken up, the learned Standing
Counsel for the State had placed before this Court the
instructions, which he had received from the Divisional
Additional Director (Secondary Education) Garhwal Mandal,
Pauri, and in fact, in the communication made by the Divisional
Additional Director (Secondary Education) Garhwal Mandal,
Pauri, who vide its communication No. 9652 dated 07.12.2021, it
had been informed and admitted that the matter stands squarely
covered by the judgement rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 602
of 2014. The relevant para 2 of the said communication is
extracted hereunder:-
**2- iz"uxr fjV ;kfpdk la0 [email protected],l,[email protected] cpu flag
xqlkbZa o vU; cuke mRrjk[k.M jkT; o vU; Hkh ;kphx.kksa }kjk
l0v0,y0Vh0 laoxZ ds osrueku ds leku osrueku esa izkjfEHkd
f"k{kk ds vUrxZr dh x;h lsokvksa dks tksM+dj l0v0,y0Vh0 laoxZ
esa le;kstu ds mijkUr p;uosrueku vuqeU; fd;s tkus gsrq
;ksftr dh x;h gSA bl izdkj ;kphx.kksa dk izdj.k Hkh fjV
;kfpdk la0 [email protected],l-,[email protected] nhi pUnz c/kkuh o vU; cuke
mRrjk[k.M jkT; o vU; ds leku gSaA**
9. In that view of the matter, since there is no controversy in
relation to the two writ petitions pertaining to Garhwal Mandal,
they will stand disposed of in terms of the judgement dated 11th
April 2017, as rendered in the bunch of writ petitions with
leading Writ Petition (S/S) No. 602 of 2014.
10. The learned Standing Counsel was slightly apprehensive to
make the reference to this communication which has been made
by Divisional Additional Director, Garhwal Division for the
purposes of dealing with other two matters relating to Kumaon
Mandal. But, after having gone through the records and having
heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the
view, that even in the other two writ petitions, almost the relief,
which has been sought and the issue involved is akin to other two
writ petitions pertaining to Garhwal Mandal and as such, there
may not have an embargo to decide the writ petitions in terms of
the judgement, rendered by the learned Single Judge dated 11th
April 2017, because therein, there is no factual distinction, as
such, in the matters pertaining to the Kumaon Mandal.
11. Hence, in that view of the matter, these petitions too will
stand decided in terms of the judgement dated 11th April 2017,
rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 602 of 2014, as affirmed by
the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its judgement dated 9th May 2019.
12. Subject to above observations and based on the ratios
already decided by the Court, the writ petitions stand disposed of.
13. Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the order sheet of
the connected writ petitions.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
09.12.2021
Mahinder/
