WPSB/304/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 1893 UK

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                                  AT NAINITAL
                   HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
                                          AND
                      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL

                  WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 304 OF 2023
                                21ST JULY, 2023
BETWEEN:
Sushil Kumar Srivastava                                          .....Petitioner.
And

State of Uttarakhand & another                                   ....Respondents.

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel.

Counsel for the State : Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General.

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel.

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)

The petitioner has preferred the present writ

petition to assail the order dated 27.03.2021, passed by

respondent no.2, i.e Uttarakhand Seeds and Tarai

Development Corporation Ltd., whereby the representation of

the petitioner, dated 08.09.2020, has been rejected, and the

petitioner has been denied the grant of higher pay-scale,

claimed by him. The second prayer made in the petition is

given up by the petitioner, as it has wrongly been made.

2. First and foremost, it is evident that the present

petition is highly belated, inasmuch, as the impugned order

was passed on 27.03.2021, and the present petition has been

preferred after over two years of the passing of the said

order.

3. Even on merits, we do not find any substance in

the petitioner's case. The petitioner has been approaching the

Court, time and again, claiming the fixation of higher pay-

scales by the respondent- Corporation in the light of the 6th

Central Pay Commission recommendations, in respect of

which the State had directed all the Public Sector

Undertakings/ Corporations to consider, and to rectify

anomalies in the pay structure.

4. Earlier, when the petitioner preferred a writ

petition, the same was disposed of with a direction to the

respondents to consider his representation.

5. The petitioner's representation was considered. The

matter was sent by the respondent-Corporation to obtain

approval of the State Government. On 03.05.2016, the State

sought information with regard to the financial condition of

respondent no.2. On 09.05.2016, respondent no.2 informed

the State that its financial condition was weak, and they were

looking to extend the benefit of higher pay-scale to the

petitioner, in case the funds are provided by the State.

6. It appears that on 09.06.2016, the petitioner was

informed that on account of weak financial condition of

respondent no.2, it is not possible to grant the benefit of

higher pay-scale to the petitioner. It is not clear whether the

said order was issued by respondent no.2, or by the State.

7. The petitioner then preferred Writ Petition (S/B)

No.88 of 2017, which was decided on 13.02.2020. The Court

noticed the aforesaid correspondence undertaken between

the respondent- Corporation, and the State Government, and

returned a finding in Paragraph No.9 that there is no illegality

in the order passed by the State on 09.06.2016. The Court

went on to observe that, ordinarily, the Court would have

dismissed the petitioner. However, since it was contended by

the petitioner that the financial condition of respondent-

Corporation has since drastically improved, it was left open to

the respondent- Corporation to consider the issue as to

whether, or not the higher pay-scale should be granted to the

petitioners. The Court further observed that it has not

expressed any opinion on whether, or not, the respondent-

Corporation should extend the monetary benefit to the

petitioners, and the matter were left to be considered by the

Board of Directors of the respondent- Corporation.

Thereafter, the respondent- Corporation has issued the

impugned order dated 27.03.2021, rejecting the claim for

higher pay-scale.

8. As already ruled by this Court, in its judgment

dated 13.02.2020, in Writ Petition (S/B) No.88 of 2017, there

is no vested right in the petitioners to claim higher pay-

scales, as recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission.

The right to receive the higher pay-scale, as recommended by

the 6th Central Pay Commission, is not automatic, and the

said recommendations were specifically required to be

accepted and adopted by the Corporations, such as

respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 has not decided to adopt

and implement those recommendations in the light of its

financial condition.

9. No employee can insist that the said

recommendations have to be adopted irrespective of the

financial condition of employer- Corporation. Therefore, even

on merits, there is no substance in the petitioner's claim. No

specific case of discrimination is made out by the petitioner.

10. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

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

(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)

(RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.) Dated: 21st July, 2023 NISHANT