WPSS/1915/2020
2026 Latest Caselaw 1738 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPSS/1915/2020 on 10 March, 2026

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                 2026:UHC:1524
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions              COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               WPSS/1915/2020
                               Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
                               1.

Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. Petitioners were appointed as Junior Clerk in Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee in the year 2006. They are aggrieved by order dated 31.07.2018 passed by Joint Secretary, Department of Agricultural Marketing, whereby their representation, claiming pay parity with Junior Clerk serving in Agricultural Produce Marketing Board, was turned down.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were appointed pursuant to an advertisement issued in the month of May 2003. It is contended that in the same advertisement, vacancies on the post of Junior Clerk were notified both in Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee as well as in Agricultural Produce Marketing Board and the pay scale indicated for 20 posts was the same i.e. ₹1350-2200. It is contended that since educational qualification and duties, responsibilities etc. are identical, therefore, there is no reason or justification whatsoever for giving less salary to the petitioners, who are serving as Junior Clerk in the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee.

2026:UHC:1524

5. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that petitioners were offered appointment in 2006 in the pay scale of ₹3050-4590, and they accepted the offer without any demur, and after serving on the post for more than fifteen years, they cannot raise the question that they were given appointment on a pay scale lower than what was indicated in the advertisement.

6. Learned State Counsel, however, concedes that the order impugned in this writ petition is non-speaking in which the nature of duties and responsibilities have not been considered at all.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 31.07.2018 is set aside. The matter is relegated back to the Secretary, Agriculture to re-consider the matter of pay parity, as per law, within six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

8. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition stands disposed of.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 10.03.2026 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=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9 802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F 5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI

ASWAL RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.03.10 06:50:06 -07'00' 2026:UHC:1524