State Of Uttarakhand And Others ... vs Ram Gopal Saxena
2024 Latest Caselaw 65 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

State Of Uttarakhand And Others ... vs Ram Gopal Saxena on 15 February, 2024

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                    NAINITAL

             Writ Petition No. 424 of 2020 (S/B)
State of Uttarakhand and others                   ...Petitioners

                              Vs.
Ram Gopal Saxena                                ...Respondent

Presence:
     Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State of
     Uttarakhand/petitioners.
     Mr. N.K. Papnoi, learned counsel for the respondent.

Coram:      Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. (Oral)

State of Uttarakhand has filed this writ petition challenging the judgment dated 28.08.2019 passed by Public Service Tribunal Uttarakhand in Claim Petition No.15/NB/DB/ 2018. By the said judgment, claim petition filed by Ram Gopal Saxena (respondent herein) for claiming benefit of Government Order dated 06.09.1997 was allowed and rejection of his claim vide order dated 16.12.2017 and 03.03.2018 was set aside.

2. The impugned judgment is challenged only on the ground that learned Tribunal failed to consider that Government Order dated 06.09.1997, was applicable only to employees of Revenue Branch and not to Survey Branch. Learned State Counsel however conceded that Revenue and Survey Branch are two wings of Revenue Department and employees serving in these branches are employees of Revenue Department.

3. The Government Order dated 06.09.1997 issued by Principal Secretary, Revenue, State of U.P. regarding upgradation of pay scale of Tehsildar and Naib Tehsildar has been quoted in Para 35 of the impugned judgment. In the subject of the said

Government Order, it is clearly mentioned that the policy decision taken by the State Government shall be applicable to Tehsildar and Naib Tehsildar serving in Revenue Department. The Government Order does not make any distinction between employees serving in Revenue Branch vis.a.vis. the employees serving in Survey Branch of Revenue Department.

4. Learned tribunal in Para 38 has taken note of the fact that the benefit of G.O. dated 06.09.1997 was extended to similarly situated employees serving in Survey Branch of the Revenue Department in District Udham Singh Nagar.

5. Since, the policy decision is applicable across the board to all employees of Revenue Department, therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in extending benefit of the policy decision to the respondent.

6. Thus, there is no scope of interference with the impugned judgment. The writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

7. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 15.02.2024 PN/-