WPSB/240/2018
2022 Latest Caselaw 2442 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                 AT NAINITAL
                      SRI JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
                                  AND
                       SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE, J.

3rd August, 2022

WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 240 OF 2018 Between:

Deepak Singh Bhandari .........Petitioner

and

State of Uttarakhand and others. ....Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel.

Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the following

JUDGMENT : (per Sri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)

On the last date, i.e. on 18.07.2022, we had

passed the following order:-

"Mr. S.S. Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondents.

The petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents to pay equal honorarium to the petitioner, like it is being paid to Lecturers in other subjects, i.e. Hindi, English, SocialStudy, Biological Science and Mathematics, in the respondent no. 3/ College i.e. Rs. 28,250/- instead of Rs. 16,750/-. The petitioner seeks uniformity with regard to payment of honorarium of Rs. 28,250/- to all the lecturers in all the subjects being taught in the respondent no. 3/ College.

The petitioner is a Physical Education teacher/ lecturer in the respondent no. 3/ College. It has come out that the educational qualification required for the position of lecturer in the aforesaid subjects, taken note of hereinabove, is, inter alia, M.Ed. degree from a recognised university with atleast 50% marks. However, for the post of Physical Education teacher/ lecturer, there is no such qualification required. The essential qualification prescribed is Post-Graduation in Physical Education with atleast 55% marks.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has himself pointed out that he is serving in a self-financed college of Government P.G. College, Uttarkashi. Therefore, it appears that the employer of the petitioner is not the same as the employer of teachers/ lecturers with whom the petitioner seeks parity in pay.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a lecturer is a lecturer, and it does not matter as to which subject the lecturer is imparting education in.

Since, we have expressed some difficulty in accepting this submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks an adjournment to get ready with his submissions.

At his request, list on 03.08.2022."

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states

that he wishes to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to

file afresh.

3. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with

liberty as prayed for.

4. In sequel thereto, pending application, if any,

also stands dismissed.

________________ VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.

____________ R.C. KHULBE, J.

Dt:3rd August, 2022 Rathour