Uttarakhand High Court

3 June vs Jot Ram And Another on 3 June, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                      2025:UHC:4472-DB


IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

                                AND

  THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY

                 Special Appeal No. 391 of 2018
                            03 June, 2025


  State of Uttarakhand and others                  ------- Appellants

                                 versus

  Jot Ram and another                                ---Respondents

                                 with

                 Special Appeal No. 392 of 2018

  State of Uttarakhand and others                  ------- Appellants

                                 versus

  Dil Bahadur and another                           ---Respondents

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Presence:-
  Mr. Sushil Vashisth, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
  Mr. Hem Chandra Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------

  JUDGMENT:

(per Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these two writ petitions, therefore, they are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Special Appeal No. 391 of 2018 alone are being considered and discussed.

2025:UHC:4472-DB

2. These intra court appeals filed by the State are directed against judgment and order dated 14.03.2018 rendered by learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1719 of 2014, Jot Ram and another vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. By the impugned judgment, respondents were directed to pay minimum of pay scale along with perks etc. to the petitioners as are being paid to regularly appointed persons.

3. The Impugned Judgment has been challenged on the ground that the writ petitioners were engaged as Daily Wager to meet exigencies of work from time to time and they did not work continuously but were engaged as and when their services were needed. Learned State counsel submits that in para 5 of the counter affidavit filed in the Writ Petition, it was specifically mentioned that writ petitioners are not engaged as daily wager after July, 2011, therefore, direction to pay same salary as is being paid to the regular employees, could not have been issued. He further submits that daily wagers are not entitled to salary in regular Pay Scale, at par with employee, appointed as per Rules.

5. We find substance in the submission made by learned State counsel.

6. As before Writ Court, State authorities took a stand that Writ Petitioners are no more in employment after July, 2011, therefore, the direction to pay minimum of pay scale to them could not have been issued. We therefore, modify the impugned judgment and provide that writ petitioners (respondents herein) would be entitled to benefit of the impugned judgment only if they

2025:UHC:4472-DB are still serving as daily wager.

7. With the aforesaid modification, both the Special Appeals stand disposed of.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) Dated: 03.06.2025 Kaushal