Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/319/2021 on 4 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 319 OF 2021
4th OCTOBER, 2021
Between:
Uttarakhand Transport Corpn. & others ...... Appellants
and
Pawan Kumar and others ...... Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned
counsel
Counsel for respondents : Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned
counsel for respondent nos.1 to
13
Mr. Tarun Lakhera, Brief Holder
for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondent no.14
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)
The appellants have challenged the legality of
order dated 13.08.2021 passed by the learned Single
Judge, in Writ Petition (S/S) No.711 of 2020, whereby
the learned Single Judge relying on judgment dated
28.07.2018, passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1275 of
2017, and has directed the appellant-Corporation to
grant revised retiral benefits to the petitioners on the
basis of the notional benefit given to them, and to pay
2
the arrears of the revised retrial benefits from
01.10.2009.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the
petitioners were employed by the appellant-Corporation
in different capacities such as Booking Clerk, Senior
Clerks, Mechanics, Drivers, Carpenter etc. They claim
that they retired from their services between 01.01.2006
to 30.09.2009. According to the petitioners, the State of
Uttarakhand had accepted the recommendations of the
Sixth Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006. On
17.10.2008, the State had issued a Government Order,
wherein the State had agreed to pay the revised pay-
scale and D.A., in cash, w.e.f. 01.09.2008, and the
arrears of pay-scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to 31.08.2008.
The said arrears were to be paid in two installments to
those employees who retired or were likely to retire in
the period of next six months. Furthermore, on
15.10.2009, the Secretary, Transport, issued a
Government Order, wherein the Government Order
dated 17.10.2008 was accepted with a modification that
the revised pay-scale shall be applicable w.e.f.
01.10.2009 in place of 01.01.2006. It was also accepted
by the Government that all the employees of the
3
Corporation shall be paid the benefit of Sixth Pay
Commission w.e.f. 01.10.2009.
3. Subsequently, the Government also issued
another Government Order dated 02.02.2010, whereby
the Government Order dated 15.10.2009 was modified
to the extent that the notional pay fixation shall be made
w.e.f. 01.10.2006. However, the Government was of the
opinion that those who have retired prior to 2009, they
shall not be given the benefit of the notional fixation.
4. Since some of the retired employees were
aggrieved by the fact that they were not being given the
benefit of the notional fixation, and that their retrial
benefits have not been re-fixed, they filed a writ
petition, namely, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1271 of 2012,
Sri Pawan Kumar and others vs. State of Uttarakhand
and others, challenging the apparent discrimination and
the denial of the benefit of notional fixation. By order
dated 07.07.2014, a learned Single Judge directed the
appellant-Corporation to give notional benefits to those
employees who had retired between 01.01.2006 and
30.09.2009.
5. Even, subsequently another set of employees
had filed a writ petition, namely, Writ Petition (S/S) No.
4
1275 of 2017. The said writ petition was decided by
another learned Single Bench of this Court on
20.07.2018. In the said order, the learned Single Judge
directed the appellant-Corporation to grant the benefit
from 01.10.2009 to those who had retired between
01.01.2006 to 30.09.2009. He further directed that even
the arrears of revised retrial benefits which had accrued
to the retirees from 01.10.2009 shall be paid.
6. According to the petitioners, the said order
was challenged before a learned Coordinate Bench of
this Court in Special Appeal No. 693 of 2018. However,
by order dated 09.05.2019, the learned Coordinate
Bench of this Court dismissed the Special Appeal, and
confirmed the order dated 20.07.2018.
7. Since the petitioners were not being granted
the benefit of the notional fixation from 01.10.2009,
they filed the present writ petition before the learned
Single Judge. As mentioned hereinabove, while relying
on the judgment dated 20.07.2018, passed in Writ
Petition (S/S) No. 1275 of 2017, the learned Single
Judge, in the present case, also passed a similar
direction to the respondents. Hence, this appeal before
this Court.
5
8. This Court has asked a pointed query to Mr.
Ashish Joshi, the learned counsel for the appellant-
Corporation, namely whether the petitioners had retired
between the period 01.01.2006 to 30.09.2009, or not?
To this pointed query, learned counsel has frankly
conceded, and in the opinion of this Court rightly so, that
the petitioners had, indeed, retired during this
interregnum.
9. But, despite this fact, learned counsel pleads
that those who have retired prior to 2009 are not
entitled to the benefit of notional fixation. However, the
stand being taken by the learned counsel is clearly
untenable. For, both in the judgment dated 07.07.2014,
and in the judgment dated 20.07.2018, passed by two
learned Single Benches of this Court, the appellant-
Corporation was directed to give the benefit of the
notional fixation to the retirees, who had retired between
01.01.2006 and 30.09.2009. Although the appellant-
Corporation had challenged the judgment dated
20.07.2018, before a learned Coordinate Bench, the
appellant-Corporation was unsuccessful. Therefore, the
order dated 20.07.2018, has achieved finality.
10. A bare perusal of the impugned order passed
by the learned Single Judge, in the present case, clearly
6
reveals that the learned Single Judge has relied on the
order dated 20.07.2018, an order which had already
achieved finality. Therefore, this Court does not find any
illegality or perversity in the reasoning of the learned
Single Judge.
11. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the
present appeal is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby,
dismissed.
_______________________________
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.
_________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 4th OCTOBER, 2021
Negi
