Pravez Alam And Others .......... ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3462 UK

                                                                     Reserved

      HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                  Writ Petition (S/S) No. 520 of 2018

Pravez Alam and others                                     .......... Petitioners

                                      Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others                          ......... Respondents


Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. S.K. Mishra, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos.1, 2 and 3.

                                      With
                  Writ Petition (S/S) No. 737 of 2018

Monorath Pandey and others                                  .......... Petitioners


                                      Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others                          ......... Respondents


Mr. Harendra Belwal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. S.K. Mishra, Standing Counsel for the State/respondents.

                                      With
                  Writ Petition (S/S) No. 740 of 2018

Narayan Dutt Pandey and others                        .......... Petitioners


                                      Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others                    ......... Respondents

Mr. Harendra Belwal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. S.K. Mishra, Standing Counsel for the State/respondents.


                                 JUDGMENT

Per: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Since common question of law and facts are involved in all these three petitions. They are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Petitioners are working in different capacities in the ministerial staffs in various Government Aided/Grant-in-Aid schools in the State of Uttarakhand. It is the case of the petitioners that their salary is regulated by the Government and it has always been at par with their counterparts working in the Government schools. By way of Government Order dated 16.01.2013, the grade-pay of the ministerial staff working in the Government establishment was amended and by a subsequent Government Order dated 08.02.2013, it was made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2013. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have not been given the benefit of the amended grade-pay. But on 20.10.2016, by a Government Order, the amended grade-pay was provided to the petitioners. But, instead of giving the benefit from 01.01.2013, the petitioners were granted benefit w.e.f. 20.10.2016. Petitioners seek directions that they be given benefit of the amended grade-pay w.e.f. 01.01.2013.

3. State has filed counter affidavit. It is the case of the State that the Government Order dated 16.01.2013 and 08.02.2013 were applicable to the ministerial staff, who were working in the Government schools; it was not applicable to the petitioners and the petitioners were subsequently given the benefit by way of Government Order dated 20.10.2016. According to the State, the Rules pertaining to the services and finances of the ministerial staff working in the Government schools and working in the Government Aided/Grant-in- Aid schools are different, therefore, the benefit of Government Order dated 16.01.2013 is not admissible to the petitioners.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Government Aided/Grant-in-Aid schools are regulated by the statute. The appointments are made as per the statutory provisions. The pay- scales of the employees in the Government Aided/Grant-in-Aid schools are also regulated by the Government. It is argued that the

Government Order dated 16.01.2013, should have been made applicable to the petitioners also. It was a mistake, which was rectified by the respondents-State by issuing Government Order dated 20.10.2016. But, still it is incomplete because the benefit has been given w.e.f. 20.10.2016 instead of 01.01.2013, as was provided to those ministerial staff/employees, who were working in the Government schools. It is argued that the discrimination is not based on any rational. The differentiation between the employees working in the Government schools and Government Aided/Grant-in-Aid schools on this count is not reasonable. Hence, mandamus be issued directing the respondents to give benefit of the amended grade-pay to the petitioners in accordance with Government Order dated 20.10.2016 w.e.f. 01.01.2013.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the petitioners are not Government servants. Their service conditions are regulated by the different statues, which is the Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006 (it has been categorically stated in supplementary counter affidavit dated 23.07.2021 by the State).

7. Learned State counsel would submit that the recruitment process for the employees in the Government schools and the schools runs by the management is different. The petitioners are working in the management schools, which are run by the Management Committee; the Chairman of the Management Committee is their appointing authority and they do not come within the ambit of Government servant. Therefore, it is argued that the Government Order dated 16.01.2013 is not applicable to them.

8. In fact, on behalf of the State the only point which is being raised to resist the claim of the petitioners is that they are not Government servants. But then, the petitioners do not claim that they are Government servants. What they claimed, is that, their pay-scales have throughout been consistent with their counterparts working in the

Government schools. At the first instance, the petitioners were aggrieved as to why the Government Order dated 16.01.2013 was not made applicable to them. But then, it was rectified by the Government Order dated 20.10.2016. But it has also not given the benefit from 01.01.2013.

9. The Court wanted to know from the learned State counsel, as to why after three years this benefit was extended to the petitioners and why the benefit was not extended from 01.01.2013?

10. There is no separate answer on behalf of the State, except what has been argued by the learned State counsel, as quoted hereinabove.

11. Admittedly, the schools in which the petitioners have been working are regulated by the Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006. There are regulations which govern the appointments of the employees working in such schools. In para 16 and 17 of the Writ Petition (S/S) No.737 of 2018, the petitioners have claimed that by Government Order dated 01.03.2009, the Government of Uttarakhand has granted similar pay-scale to the teachers working in the Government schools and the teachers who are working in the Government Aided schools with effect from the same dates. Similarly, in para 17 of the Writ Petition (S/S) No.737 of 2018, the petitioners have stated that by Government Orders dated 21.03.2011 and 14.12.2011, the benefit of grade-pay was given to the Class IV employees of the Government Aided/Grant-in-Aid schools from the same date from which it was paid to their counterparts in the Government schools. The only difference was made with regard to the ministerial staff. They are the petitioners. In its counter affidavit, the State in para 15 have not denied the averments as made by the petitioners. In WPSS No.737 of 2018 (para 15), merely it is stated that it is a matter of records and comparison cannot be made between the teaching staff and Group IV employees with the clerical staff.

12. There seems to be less logic in this reply to para 16 and 17 of the writ petition (S/S) No.737 of 2018. If the teachers and Group IV employees working in the Government Aided/Grant-in-Aid schools were given the benefits of same pay-scale/grade-pay and from the same date as was given to their counterparts of the Government schools, why discrimination was made with regard to the ministerial staff. There is no reason what to say of reasonable classification.

13. It is also the case of the petitioners that by virtue of a notification dated 05.12.2016 (Annexure No.7), the State of Uttarakhand has provided that the employees working in the Government Aided/Grant-in-Aid schools shall be given benefit of sanctioned pay-scales from time to time as paid to the employees of the Government schools. This has been so stated in para 14 of the writ petition in WPSS No.737 of 2018. It has also not been denied by the State in their counter affidavit in para 13, merely it is stated that it is a matter of record.

14. The ministerial staff working in the Government schools were given benefit of the grade-pay by Government Order dated 16.01.2013 and 08.02.2013 and the benefits were extended to them w.e.f. 01.01.2013. But, these benefits were granted to the petitioners, who were working in the Government Aided/Grant-in-Aid schools w.e.f. 20.10.2016. The benefit was denied to the petitioners w.e.f. 01.01.2013, without any reasonable classification. The petitioners are also entitled to the benefit of amended grade-pay w.e.f. 01.01.2013.

15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that these writ petitions deserve to be allowed.

16. All the three writ petitions are allowed. Petitioners shall be granted the benefit of amended grade-pay w.e.f. 01.01.2013. The arrears shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of four months from today.

17. No orders as to cost.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 06.09.2021 Sanjay