Mukesh Singh And Others ... ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 4747 UK

          HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                  AT NAINITAL
              Writ Petition (S/S) No. 113 of 2021
Mukesh Singh and others                              ...       Petitioners
                                       Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others                              ... Respondents
Advocates :   Mr. Hem Chandra Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioners
              Mr. N.S. Pundir, Deputy Advocate General, for the State


Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

The petitioners before this Court who are 13 in numbers have basically contended, that they were granted respective appointments as Class-IV employees on daily wage basis in the forest department and they were paid a consolidated salary of Rs. 8332/- per month.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite enforcement of the recommendations of the 6th and 7th Pay Commission, the pay scale which was initially paid to them has not been proportionately revised in accordance with the implications of the recommendations of 6th and 7th Pay Commission and hence they had preferred this writ petition; when there was a non consideration of their claim at the behest of the respondents for the grant of relief and the petitioners have accordingly modulated their relief in the writ petition in the following manner:-

"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay prevailing minimum of pay scale as per recommendation of 7th pay commission and Dearness Allowance alongwith arrears to the petitioners as being paid to the regularly appointed employees working in the department as per Govt. orders alongwith rate of interest.

II. Issue any other order or direction, which is deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioners.

III. Award cost of the writ petition to the petitioners."

3. In fact, the principal contention of the petitioners in the writ petition, is that they would be rather entitled to for the grant of minimum of the pay scale as per the recommendations of 7th Pay Commission and dearness allowances too, as it has been made payable to a regular employee of the Government Department.

4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits and relies too, that earlier the matter came up for consideration in a bunch of writ petitions before the coordinate Bench of this Court in a bunch of writ petitions, with the leading Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1721 of 2015, Kushlanand Gaur and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, which was decided and disposed of on 23.03.2017, by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the light of the judgment dated 21.02.2002, as was rendered in Civil Appeal No. 3634 of 1998, State of U.P. & Others Vs. Putti Lal, and accordingly, the coordinate Bench of this Court had passed the orders, directing the respondents to release the minimum of the pay scale to the petitioners therein along with grade pay as admissible under the recommendations of 7th Pay Commission and on the arrears thus payable on it, the interest was directed to be remitted @ 12% per annum. The relevant part of the judgment dated 23.03.2017 of the coordinate Bench of this Court is extracted hereunder:-

"It would be apt at this stage to mention that the similarly situated persons had also approached this Court by way of filing WPSS Nos.1284 of 2011, Rajendra Singh Rawat & others v. State of Uttarakhand & others, and other analogous matters. These petitions were decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 10.12.2013 whereby the respondents-State was directed to pay minimum of the pay scale including grade pay to the petitioners, therein, w.e.f. 1.1.2006. In view of this judgment,

the present petitioners are also entitled to get minimum of pay scale including the grade pay w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

Accordingly, all these petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to pay and release the minimum of pay scale to the petitioners along with the Grade Pay within a period of ten weeks from today. Arrears be also paid calculating the interest @ 12 per annum."

5. As against the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court, a bunch of Special Appeals were preferred before the Division Bench of this Court with leading Special Appeal No. 963 of 2017, State of Uttarakhand and others Vs. Raspal Singh and others, and the Division Bench of this Court, by the judgment dated 18.12.2020, while considering the respective contentions and after considering the implications of the judgment reported in AIR 1963 SC 913, State of Punjab Vs. Joginder Singh and 1972 (2) SCC, 275, Zabar Singh and others Vs. The State of Haryana and others, and State of Bihar and others Vs. The Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger (order in Civil Appeal No. 4862 of 2019), as well as the recent judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 (1) SCC 148, State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, had also made a reference to the relevant paragraphs of the judgment dated 12.02.2020, as extracted in para 2 of the judgment of the Division Bench and consequently, the Special Appeal preferred by the State was disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 12.02.2020, which has been referred by the Division Bench of this Court in para 2 of the said judgment, which is extracted hereunder:-

"2. In terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 12.02.2020, the civil appeals were disposed off in the following terms:-

Leave granted.

On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the pleadings and affidavits, learned counsel for the appellant confined the relief to grant of minimum pay scale as is available to their counterparts in Government. He submits that what is being paid is on the basis of 6th Pay Commission while the directions passed in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Putti Lal- (2006) 9 SCC 337 makes it quite

clear that what has to be granted is "minimum of the pay scale as is available to his counter part in the Government until his services are regularized and he is given regular scale of pay."

Insofar as the aspect of dearness allowance is concerned, learned senior counsel initially sought to rest his case on the judgment pertaining to Uttar Pradesh but then stated that even the State of Uttarakhand, the State in question has given dearness allowance in certain cases.

Suffice for us to say that if dearness allowance is being given to other daily wagers, naturally the State will not discriminate the daily wagers on this aspect.

We are in agreement with the claim of learned counsel that in view of the judgment referred to aforesaid the minimum of the pay-scale as is defined is with reference to the counter parts in the Government holding the Government posts. Thus, if the 7th Pay Commission is implemented (as is conceded) qua the regular employees, the workers like the appellants would be entitled to the minimum of the pay-scale of those regular Government employees of the Group D posts.

The Appeals are accordingly disposed of in terms thereof."

6. It has been informed at the bar, that as against the judgment of the Division Bench dated 18.12.2020, the State has preferred an SLP, which is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court, but without there being any interim orders passed on it. The learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted, that the reference made to the judgment dated 12.02.2020, which has been relied by the Division Bench of this Court too, in fact, the same has also been relied by the petitioners in the present writ petition (Annexure-3), wherein while deciding the Civil Appeal No. 1486-1489 of 2020, Uttaranchal Van Shramic Sangh Rani Bagh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, the minimum of the pay scale has been made admissible to be made payable to the daily wagers, who have been working in the forest department.

7. Hence, I am of the view that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners stands squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments, already referred above and as extracted above. Accordingly, this writ petition too would stand decided in terms of the judgment dated 18.12.2020, rendered in Special

Appeal No. 963 of 2017, State of Uttarakhand and others Vs. Raspal Singh and others.

8. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to pay the minimum of the pay scale to the petitioners on the basis of the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission and also ensure to pay the interest on the arrears from the date of its enforceability as per the prevalent interest at banks' rate of interest.

9. Subject to above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 25.11.2021 Mahinder/