Wednesday, 13, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

SPA/263/2018
2023 Latest Caselaw 3490 UK

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 3490 UK
Judgement Date : 4 December, 2023

Uttarakhand High Court

SPA/263/2018 on 4 December, 2023

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Vivek Bharti Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
           AT NAINITAL
     ON THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
                        BEFORE:
     JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
                    AND
     JUSTICE SHRI VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA

          Special Appeal No. 263 OF 2018

BETWEEN:
State of Uttarakhand & others         ... Appellants

AND:
Manohar Gururani                      ... Respondent

     Petitioner
     (By Mr. J.C. Pandey, Advocate)

     Respondents
     (None present for the respondent)

                      JUDGMENT

1. Despite opportunity, objection to the delay condonation application has not been filed. For the facts and reasons indicated in the delay condonation application, the same (CLMA No. 5116 of 2018) is allowed and delay in filing the special appeal is hereby condoned.

2. This intra court appeal is filed by State of Uttarakhand challenging the final order dated 29.03.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 2474 of 2016. By the said order, writ petition filed by respondent was disposed of in terms of judgment rendered in WPSB No. 66 of 2008. Operative portion of the said judgment reads as under:-

"Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the present lis is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in WPSB No. 66 of 2008 on 25.03.2010.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the terms of the judgment cited hereinabove.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of."

3. It is not in dispute that respondent was appointed as Psychologist in Government Ashram Padhati Vidhyalaya under Tribal Welfare Department of the State Government in the year 2004. According to respondent, persons serving as Psychologist in Tribal Welfare Department are performing same functions and teaching same subjects as their counterparts in Education Department, therefore, they are entitled to pay parity with Psychologist serving in School Education Department. Since Psychologist serving in Ashram Padhati Vidhyalaya, run by Tribal Welfare Department, were paid salary in lower pay scale, therefore, respondent filed WPSS No. 2474 of 2016, seeking the following relief:-

I. Issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to respondents to treat the post of psychologist working under Ashram Paddhwati Vidylayas as equivalent to the post of psychologist under Education department and grant equivalent pay scale with effect from the same date from when, it is being paid to their counter parts of education department.

II. Issue a writ, rule order or directions in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to respondents fix the salary of the post of psychologist on appropriate pay band i.e. 15600- 39100 / grade pay 5400, as is being paid to their counter parts psychologist of education department and accordingly pay the salary and all other consequential benefits to the petitioner. It is also prayed to this Hon'ble court to issue necessary directions to impost exemplary penalty, upon the respondent, for the in- exorbitant, unreasonable delay in providing the benefit of aforesaid government orders and also award 18% interest to the petitioner since the date of applicability of the aforesaid orders.

4. A counter affidavit is filed by Mr. B.R. Tamta, Director, Tribal Welfare Department,

Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. In para 5 of the said counter affidavit, it is stated that the post of Psychologist in the Office of Regional Additional Director of Education was equivalent to the post of Lecturer, and both the posts were earlier having pay scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500, which was revised to Rs. 9300-34800, Grade Pay Rs. 4800, pursuant to 6th Pay Commission Report. It is further stated that the post of Psychologist in Tribal Welfare Department, is a much lower non-teaching post and petitioner was appointed to the said post in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000, while the post of Psychologist in Education Department was carrying pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 at the relevant point of time. It is further stated that post of Assistant Psychologist and Psychologist in Education Department have been abolished. In para 10 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that in Ashram Paddhati Vidhyalaya, students from Class 6th to Class 10th are not having Psychology as a subject, thus there is no question of petitioner teaching them.

5. Learned State Counsel submits that the stand taken by Tribal Welfare Department against respondent's claim for pay parity has not been considered at all by learned Single Judge, while deciding the writ petition. He further submits that the decision rendered by Division Bench in WPSB No. 66 of 2008 was on a different issue altogether, therefore, the writ petition filed by respondent could not have been decided in terms of said judgment.

6. We have gone through the judgment rendered in WPSB No. 66 of 2008. In that case, writ petitioner was serving as Principal in Government

Ashram Paddhwati Vidhyalya and he was given pay parity with Principal serving in School Education Department w.e.f. 01.07.2001. The only dispute was as to whether benefit of 5th Pay Revision has to be given to him w.e.f. 01.07.2001 or 01.12.2005. State Government had granted benefit of pay revision to petitioner in the said writ petition w.e.f. 01.12.2005 and coordinate Bench of this Court held that the said benefit has to be given to him w.e.f. 01.07.2001. Thus, the question of pay parity, as raised by respondent in his writ petition, was not in issue in WPSB No. 66 of 2008.

7. From reading of the impugned order, we find that learned Single Judge has not dealt with the contention raised on behalf of respondent. The impugned order is a non-speaking order, which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

8. We accordingly allow the special appeal and set aside the judgment and order dated 29.03.2017 passed by learned Single Judge. The matter is remitted back to learned Single Judge for decision afresh, after considering the stand taken by the departmental authorities in their counter affidavit.

_______________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, ACJ.

______________________ VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA, J.

4th December, 2023 ASWAL

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter