Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another"
2021 Latest Caselaw 2280 UK

                   Office Notes,
                reports, orders or
                 proceedings or
sl. No   Date                                     COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
                  directions and
                Registrar's order
                 with Signatures
                                     WPSS No.779 of 2021
                                     With
                                     WPSS No.778 of 2021
                                     Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

(Via video conferencing).

Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. N.P. Shah, Standing Counsel, for the State of Uttarakhand.

The petitioners of Writ Petition (S/S) No.779 of 2021, "Akhilesh Singh Rana & others Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another", had contended that they were appointed as Junior Engineers on a contractual basis with the respondents in the year 2014 after their participation in selection process. Their grievance is that in the light of the various judgments, which has been referred in the writ petition, their claim for grant of equal pay for equal work, and also for the regularization of their services has not been considered. While on the contrary by the Order No.1503/111(1)/2020-131/2006, dated 08.09.2020, has been issued by the respondent No.1, whereby the requisition has been made to the Personnel Department of the State Government, to proceed with the regular appointment.

The identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No.683 of 2021, which was disposed of by this Court vide its judgment dated 23.06.2021.

In other connected Writ Petition (S/S) No.778 of 2021, "Anurag Tripathi & another Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another", the Registry has reported that certain annexure Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5, are required as there font size is not as per the Rules.

Since this Court is not venturing into the merits of the matter, the said defect as pointed out by the Registry, in the Writ Petition (S/S) No.778 of 2021, would stand over ruled.

In this writ petition (WPSS No.778 of 2021) too, which has been preferred by the four petitioners, they were also claiming for consideration of their claim for regularization on the pretext that they have been appointed as Junior Engineers, though on a contractual basis way back in the year 2013, but it was after undergoing the process of selection and advertisement of the post, and hence they should be considered for the grant of equal pay for equal work, as well as for the regularization, for which the petitioners have already represented their claim before the respondents.

This writ petition too stands squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No.683 of 2021.

This fact that both these writ petitions stand covered by the judgment of 23.06.2021, as rendered in WPSS No.683 of 2021, is a fact, which is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

Hence, these writ petitions too would stand disposed of under the same terms and conditions, as that of the judgment dated 23.06.2021, as rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No.683 of 2021, (Siddarth Ranghar Vs. State of Uttarakhand).

Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand disposed of.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 07.07.2021

NR/