Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttarakhand And Others ... vs Kushlanand Gaur And Others on 28 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:3176-DB
'IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J
HON'BLE MR. ASHISH NAITHANI, J
SPECIAL APPEAL No. 650 of 2017
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Appellants
Versus
Kushlanand Gaur and Others ...Respondents
Counsel for appellant : Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy
Advocate General.
JUDGMENT :
(per HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
There is no representation on behalf of
respondents.
2. State of Uttarakhand has filed this intra-Court
Appeal, challenging the judgment and order dated
23.03.2017, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition (S/S) No. 1721 of 2015. By the said judgment,
the Writ Petition, filed by writ petitioners (respondents
herein) was allowed, and it was held that writ petitioners
are also entitled to get minimum of pay scale, including
the Grade Pay, with effect from 01.01.2006. The
impugned judgment is extracted below:-
"Petitioners were working with the respondent-Department in
various capacities including Fire Watcher, Moharris, Drivers etc.
The grievance of the petitioners, precisely, is that they are not
being paid the minimum of pay scale after 2013 which is paid to
their counterparts who are discharging the same on similar
duties.
The stand taken by the State Government in the counter affidavit
is that since the petitioners have not been appointed against the
regular posts, they cannot be paid the minimum of pay scale.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the basis of record,
submits that the similarly situated persons, who were also not
2025:UHC:3176-DB
appointed against the sanctioned posts, are being paid the
minimum of pay scale throughout the State of Uttarakhand.
CMWP No.15302 of 1993 was filed before the learned Single
Judge of Allahabad High Court claiming D.A. etc. The petition was
allowed on 21.8.1995. Against the judgment dated 21.8.1995,
Special Appeal No.653 of 1995 was preferred. The Division Bench
partly allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment dated
21.8.1995.
Vide judgment dated 21.2.2002 passed in Civil Appeal No.3634
of 1998 'State of U.P. & others v. Putti Lal', their Lordships of
Hon. Supreme Court, have observed that the appropriate
authority will consider the case of daily wagers sympathetically
and till then, they should be paid the minimum of pay scale.
Now, the respondent-State cannot go against the dicta of Hon.
Supreme Court rendered in the above-cited case. The petitioners
are entitled to the minimum of pay scale on the principle of
'equal pay for equal work'. Petitioners are discharging the similar
duties as are being discharged by their counterparts and the
minimum educational qualification, responsibility and duties are
also the same. It is settled law that the equals cannot be treated
unequally. The action of the respondents, in denying the
minimum of pay scale to the petitioners, is declared arbitrary,
unreasonable and thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
It would be apt at this stage to mention that the similarly
situated persons had also approached this Court by way of filing
WPSS Nos.1284 of 2011, Rajendra Singh Rawat & others v. State
of Uttarakhand & others, and other analogous matters. These
petitions were decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide
judgment dated 10.12.2013 whereby the respondents-State was
directed to pay minimum of the pay scale including grade pay to
the petitioners, therein, w.e.f. 1.1.2006. In view of this
judgment, the present petitioners are also entitled to get
minimum of pay scale including the grade pay w.e.f. 1.1.2006.
Accordingly, all these petitions are allowed. The respondents are
directed to pay and release the minimum of pay scale to the
petitioners along with the Grade Pay within a period of ten weeks
from today. Arrears be also paid calculating the interest @ 12 per
annum.
Orders, under challenge, in all these petitions, are quashed and
set aside.
All the applications also stand disposed of."
3. Appellants have challenged the said judgment,
by contending that writ petitioners were appointed, as
daily wagers, in Forest Department to meet the
exigencies of work. They were being paid minimum of
pay scale pursuant to judicial order, since they were not
serving against a sanctioned vacant post, therefore, in
2025:UHC:3176-DB
view of the stipulation made in the Government Order
dated 04.01.2013, issued by Additional Secretary Forest,
writ petitioners were not entitled to benefit of pay
revision with effect from 01.01.2006. Thus, he submits
that the claim staked by writ petitioners for grant of
minimum of pay scale in the revised pay scale, with
effect from 01.01.2006, was unsustainable, and the
learned Single Judge erred in allowing the Writ Petition,
by overlooking the provisions contained in the relevant
Government Order.
4. Learned State Counsel submits that writ
petitioners have challenged a communication made by
the concerned Divisional Forest Officer, whereby they
were informed that, since they are not serving against
sanctioned vacant posts, therefore, they are not entitled
to the benefit of Government Order dated 12.03.2014.
He further submits that in the Writ Petition, writ
petitioners (respondents herein) have not challenged the
conditions mentioned in the Government Order dated
12.03.2014 - that benefit of pay revision, with effect
from 01.01.2006, would be available to only such daily-
wage employees, who are serving against sanctioned
vacant post.
2025:UHC:3176-DB
5. Learned State Counsel has drawn the
attention of this Court to paragraph no. 5 of counter
affidavit, filed before Writ Court, by the Divisional Forest
Officer, Additional Yamuna Forest Division Badkot,
Uttarkashi. In paragraph no. 5 of the said counter
affidavit, it is stated that on 01.01.2006, a total of 58
daily-wagers were serving in the Department, out of
which, 03 were serving against vacant Group-C post,
and 14 were serving against Group-D post, and the
remaining 41 daily-wage employees were serving in the
absence of any sanctioned vacant post.
6. In paragraph no. 10 and paragraph no. 16 of
the counter affidavit, it is mentioned that the writ
petitioners (respondents herein) are being paid
minimum of pay scale.
7. Learned State Counsel submits that
petitioners had claimed arrears of salary from
01.01.2006, by contending that minimum of pay scale
has been paid to such daily-wage employees, who were
serving against vacant post, and they were given benefit
of pay revision, hence they are also entitled for the
same. However, in the Writ Petition, petitioners have not
challenged the Government Order dated 12.03.2014,
which provided that benefit of pay revision, with effect
2025:UHC:3176-DB
from 01.01.2006, would be given only to such daily-
wage employees, who are serving against sanctioned
vacant post.
8. Learned State Counsel further submits that
the facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1284 of 2011
(Rajendra Singh Rawat and Others v. State of
Uttarakhand and Others) were different, as petitioners in
that Writ Petition were appointed against sanctioned
vacant post, as such parity of benefit in Writ Petition
(S/S) No. 1284 of 2011 could not have been given to
the writ petitioners.
9. This Court finds substance in the submission
made by learned State Counsel. Since in the
Government Order dated 12.03.2014, it had specifically
been provided that benefit of pay revision would be
available only to such daily-wagers, who were appointed
against sanctioned vacant post, therefore, without
setting aside the said conditions, contained in the
aforesaid Government Order, directions issued by
learned Single Judge to give benefit of pay revision to
the writ petitioners, with effect from 01.01.2006 could
not have been issued.
10. In such view of the matter, interference with
the impugned judgment would be warranted to the
2025:UHC:3176-DB
limited extent. We, accordingly, allow the Special
Appeal, and set-aside the declaration made by learned
Single Judge that writ petitioners are also entitled to get
benefit of pay revision with effect from 01.01.2006.
However, we make it clear that we have not interfered
with the other directions, issued by the learned Single
Judge.
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
ASHISH NAITHANI, J.
Dt: 28th April, 2025
Shiksha
SHIKSHA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa
08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001,
BINJOLA
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF
0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9,
cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA
Date: 2025.05.02 17:36:31 +05'30'
