Uttarakhand High Court

Uttarakhand Revenue Collection vs State Of Uttarakhand on 22 September, 2021

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                  Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1809 of 2015

Uttarakhand Revenue Collection
Amin Sangh                                                    ....... Petitioner
                                      Vs.

State of Uttarakhand
and Others                                                  ......Respondents


                                     With
                  Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1810 of 2015

Uttarakhand Revenue Collection
Peon Sangh                                                    ....... Petitioner
                                      Vs.

State of Uttarakhand
and Others                                                  ......Respondents

Present:
Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. N.S. Pundir, D.A.G. alongwith Mr. S.M.S. Mehta, Brief Holder for the State.



                                JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Since, common question of facts and law are involved

in both these writ petitions, they are being decided by the common

judgment.

2. In WPSS No. 1809 of 2015, petitioner represents the

Collection Amin in District Udham Singh Nagar and in WPSS No.

1810 of 2015, the petitioner represents the Collection Peon.

3. Petitioners have been denied the benefit of

government order dated 16.12.2011 by which the similarly situated

employees in other districts of the State of Uttarakhand were given the

benefit of service from 09.11.2000. The petitioners have claimed that

they be also extended the benefit of government order dated

16.12.2011. (Annexure-4 to the writ petition.) Petitioners also claim

that they should be given the benefit of assured career progression

scheme (ACP). It is the case of the petitioners that they have been

working in district Udham Singh Nagar. Their service were regularized

sometime in the year 2013. By the government order dated

16.12.2011, service benefits were given to the Collection Amin of nine

districts of Uttarakhand w.e.f. 09.11.2011 from the date of creation of

the State, but, the benefit was denied to the similarly situated

Collection Amin and Collection Peon of the district Udham Singh

Nagar and district Haridwar. Hence, the petition.

4. The respondent no.3 District Magistrate, Udham Singh

Nagar filed counter affidavit and in paragraph 6 of it, it is stated that

the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the government order

dated 16.12.2011 because it is not applicable to them. The respondent

no.4, District Magistrate, Pithoragarh has admitted in his counter

affidavit that Collection Amin and Collection Peon working in that

district, have been given service benefit w.e.f. 09.11.2000 and by an

order dated 08.10.2013, the benefit of ACP has also been given to

them. The respondent no. 3 has also filed a supplementary counter

affidavit on 11.02.2021, in which, mainly distinction has made

between the Collection Amin and the Collection Peon working in the

hilly area or plain area. The respondent no. 4, the District Magistrate,

Pithoragarh has also filed a supplementary counter affidavit dated

08.06.2021, in which it is categorically stated that pursuant to the

directions dated 23.09.2003 passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 5695 of

2001, the seasonal Collection Amin and the seasonal Collection Peon

have been granted benefit of pay annual increment and bonus in view

of the recommendation of 5th pay commission.

5. The petitioners, by way of rejoinder affidavit, have

brought a few facts on record. Reference has been made to the

judgment and order dated 27.12.2010 of this Court passed in WPSS

No. 715 of 2009 ('the third writ petition') in which, according to the

petitioners, it was held that the seasonal Amins and Peons of district

Udham Singh Nagar are performing similar work of Collection Amin

and Peon as the work performed by the Collection Amin and Peon of

district Pithoragarh. The petitioners have also made reference to the

judgment and order dated 16.07.1997, passed in WPSS No. 9557 of

1997 by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad ('the first writ

petition') to submit that in that case it was held that the service

condition of seasonal Collection Amins and Peons working in the hill

and plains are same and they are performing same duties as that of

regular Collection Amins and Peons. In fact, it is the case of the

petitioner that earlier the petitioners have filed a Writ Petition (S/S)

bearing no. 1667 of 2003 ('the second writ petition') which was

decided on 13.02.2007, in which, directions were given to the

respondents to grant service benefits such as house allowance, annual

increment, group insurance facility, provident fund, as was being

provided to Collection Amins in District Pithoragarh. The petitioners

have also referred to the judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition

(S/S) No. 933 of 2017 ('the fourth writ petition') and connected

matters, which were decided by this Court on 14.11.2017 to submit

that, in fact, by that order the Court held that there is symmetry in the

nature of work of Amins and Peons working in hill and plain areas.

6. It may be mentioned here only that since beginning, it

is the case of the petitioners that the service benefits including the ACP

has already been granted to similarly situated workers in the district of

Pithoragarh. In their counter affidavit, respondent no.4 District

Magistrate Pithoragarh has admitted these contentions as true. Though,

as stated, a distinction has been drawn between the workers working in

the plain area and hill area. He denied the benefits of government order

dated 16.12.2011 to the petitioners on the ground that it does not apply

to the petitioners because they are working in the district Udham Singh

Nagar. The counter affidavit revolves around the enforcement of

government order dated 16.12.2011.

7. The main question in the instant petition is as to why

the benefit of government order dated 16.12.2011 has not been

extended to the Collection Amins and Collection Peons working in the

district Udham Singh Nagar. Perhaps, the best answer would have

been given by the State of Uttarakhand. But, the State, the respondent

no.1 has not filed any counter affidavit.

8. In fact, the instant petitions were once decided by this

Court on 21.02.2018 and the respondents were directed to release the

benefit of ACPs to the petitioners. This order dated 21.02.2018 passed

in these petitions was challenged by the respondents in Special Appeal

No. 918 of 2018, State and Others Vs. Uttarakhand Revenue

Collection Peon Sangh ('special appeal'). The special appeal was

decided on 13.12.2018. In the special appeal, it was held that while

deciding the petitions on 21.02.2018, the Court did not examine the

entitlement of the petitioners to the benefit of ACP scheme.

Accordingly, the order dated 21.02.2018 was set-aside and the matter

came up again for hearing.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that

State is denying equal treatment to the petitioners without any reason.

The differentiation is based on no logic, no reasons, which may fall for

scrutiny of this Court.

11. Learned counsel would raise the following points.

(i) In first writ petition, on 16.07.1997, the Court had held that

the petitioners therein who were otherwise named as seasonal

Collection Amins, were performing the same work as that of

regular Collection Amins and regular Collection Peons and

they were directed to be paid the same salary, allowances and

other benefits and facilities as regular Collection Amins and

Collection Peons, as the case may be, on the principles of

equal pay for equal work.

(ii) In second writ petition, on 13.02.2007, this Court had

extended all the service benefits to the petitioners equal to

the benefits, which were being given to the similarly situated

workers in district Pithoragarh. Pursuant to the directions

dated 13.02.2007 passed in the second writ petition when the

respondents did not extend the service benefits to the

petitioners, a contempt petition was filed, but, subsequently

the petitioners were advised to file the third writ petition.

(iii) In third writ petition on 27.10.2007, the Court categorically

held that the petitioners are performing similar works of

Collection Amins and Peons, as the work performed by the

Collection Amins and Peons of District Pithoragarh.

(iv) The judgment and order dated 27.10.2007 passed in the third

writ petition has never been challenged by the respondent,

instead, it was complied by the respondent no.3 by passing

an order on 02.10.2011 (annexure-2 to the writ petition).

(v) In fourth writ petition, which was related to the benefits of

service to the Collection Amins and Collection Peons of

district Dehradun, the Court had held that the discrimination

is not rationale. Reference has been made to paragraph

nos.15, 16 and 17 of it.

(vi) The petitioners have already been granted other salary and

allowances related benefits pursuant to the order dated

27.10.2007 passed in third writ petition, but, the benefit of

ACP has been denied to them without any reason.

(vii) Similarly situated worker in district Haridwar have also been

granted the service benefit on 03.01.2018.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

all these benefits have been granted to the petitioners except ACP.

Denial of ACP is without any reason. Hence, the petitions deserve to

be allowed.

13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would

submit that in the second and third writ petition, the petitioners could

have sought the benefit of ACP, which they did not. Therefore, now,

the writ petition is barred by the principle of res judi cata.

14. The Court wanted to know as to why ACP benefit has

not been given to the petitioners. On what ground, it has been denied?

There is no answer to it. Even the Court wanted to know from the

learned State Counsel that as to why the similar benefits, as granted to

Collection Amins and Collection Peons in district Pithoragarh, have

not been given to the petitioners, as directed by this Court in second

writ petition decided on 13.02.2007? To it, learned State Counsel

would submit that "in second writ petition, equal pay for equal work

was given. Thereafter, the government order dated 16.12.2011 came

into force. Therefore, ACP was not given." The Court further wanted

to know from learned State Counsel that pursuant to the directions

dated 27.10.2007 passed in third writ petition, the petitioners have

already been granted admissible salary and allowances by an order

dated 02.10.2011 of the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. In

such situation, why ACP was denied? To it, learned State Counsel

would reply that by the order dated 02.10.2011 of the respondent no.3,

District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, it has been mentioned that

whatever is admissible to the petitioner shall be given. The question is

why ACP is not admissible. It is not answered.

15. As stated, State has not come up with a definite case

as to why the benefit of government order dated 16.12.2011 has not

been extended to the petitioner. The benefit was given to the similarly

situated workers in the district Pithoragarh and respondent no.4, who is

District Magistrate, Pithoragarh admits further that similarly situated

workers in district Pithoragarh were regularized and were granted ACP

as well. The respondent no.3 District Magistrate Udham Singh Nagar

simply denies the benefit of government order dated 16.12.2011 to the

petitioner on the ground that it is not extended to them, but, as stated,

at the cost of repetition, the question is why is it denied?

16. In a supplementary counter affidavit, respondent no.3

District Magistrate Udham Singh Nagar had tried to make a distinction

that since petitioners are in plains area and Pithoragarh happens to be

in hilly area, it was not given. How is the working different? What

experience the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar had, when he

filed his counter affidavit, based on which, he could say that the

working is different? Did he work in district Pithoragarh? Had he been

in charge of district Pithoragarh? How is this information based? There

is nothing in this counter affidavit. In fact, the supplementary counter

affidavit dated 11.12.2021 filed by respondent no.3 District Magistrate

Udham Singh Nagar is against the observation, which this Court has

made while deciding the third writ petition on 27.10.2007. It would be

apt to reproduce what this Court had held in third writ petition;

"This Court is of the view that this writ petition deserves to be

allowed, as the petitioners are performing similar work of

collection amins and peon as the work performed by the

collection amins and peons of district Pithoragarh. The Board

of Revenue, had also recommended that the seasonal collection

amins are to be given all the facilities which are given to the

regular employees. The State Government has adopted the

attitude of disparity and discrimination with the collection

amins of district Udham Singh Nagar whereas the collection

amins of district Pithoragarh are getting all the benefits, in

view of the order passed by this Court."

And thereafter, the Court concluded;

"Taking into consideration that the principle of 'equal pay for

equal work' has to be applied, the respondents are directed to

grant similar benefits, as being provided to the collection amins

of district Pithoragarh."

17. In third writ petition, this Court has categorically held

that the petitioners are working performing similar work of Collection

Amins and Peons, as the work performed by the Collection Amins and

Peons of district Pithoragarh. This finding is final. In fact, this

judgment, as stated, has also been enforced by the respondent no.3

District Magistrate Udham Singh Nagar. The service benefits have

already been extended to the petitioners. Why ACP is denied, there is

no reason and no reason can be even comprehended. Therefore, the

denial is not reasonable. It is not based on any principle, any statute or

any law.

18. It is the case of the petitioners that the service benefits

have already been given to similarly situated persons in Haridwar.