[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/2183/2025 on 19 December, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:11396
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPSS/2183/2025
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
1. Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel
for the petitioners.
2. Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Central
Government Standing Counsel for the
Union of India.
3. Mr. Vikas Pande, learned counsel for
respondent no. 3.
4. Petitioners are serving as Assistant
Grade-II (LDC) in Wild Life Institute of
India, Dehradun. According to them,
they are entitled to pay scale in Pay
Matrix Level-II, it is being paid to
respondent no. 4, yet their pay has been
fixed at a lower level.
5. It is contended that petitioners and
respondent no. 4 were regularised
together on the post of Assistant Grade-
III, therefore, there cannot be any
disparity in their pay scale.
6. Mr. Vikas Pande, learned counsel
appearing for Wild Life Institute of India,
however, submits that respondent no. 4
was appointed on contract as Computer
Assistant before his regularisation, while
petitioners served as Lower Division
Clerk before their regularisation; as
Computer Assistant, respondent no. 4
was getting more amount as salary,
which is the reason his pay was fixed at
a higher level.
7. In reply, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that even though
petitioners have been promoted to the
2025:UHC:11396
next higher post of Assistant Grade-II
yet they are getting lesser amount as
salary compared to respondent no. 4,
even though respondent no. 4 has not
been promoted and he is still serving as
LDC.
8. Perusal of record reveals that
petitioners had made representation,
highlighting their grievances before the
Registrar, Wild Life Institute of India and
Registrar has rejected their claim, vide
order dated 28.04.2025, however, the
rejection order passed by Registrar is
non-speaking and does not disclose any
reason, why claim of petitioners was not
entertained. It merely refers to a
judgment rendered in SPA No. 455 of
2018.
9. Perusal of said judgment, however,
indicates that there is no observation
made in the judgment, which may be
relied upon by Registrar for denying
benefit of pay parity.
10. Since the impugned order is bereft
of reason and for exercising power of
judicial review there has to be some
concrete reason in the impugned order,
therefore, on this sole ground alone, the
writ petition is allowed. The rejection
order dated 28.04.2025 is set aside. The
Registrar is directed to pass a reasoned
and speaking order dealing with the all
the issues raised by petitioners in their
representation. Such decision shall be
taken within three months from the date
of presentation of certified copy of this
order.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)
19.12.2025
Aswal
NITI RAJ Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
SINGH
2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f074
77005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f
3, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F1
ASWAL
0C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A5
8531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL
Date: 2025.12.19 05:46:11 -08'00'
2025:UHC:11396
