3Th March vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 13 March, 2026

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                         2026:UHC:1779-DB

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                  AT NAINITAL
                     HON'BLE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
                                    AND
                    HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PANKAJ PUROHIT
                 WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 32 OF 2023

                              13TH MARCH, 2026

Darshan Singh Rawat and Others                    ......          Petitioners

                                 Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                   ......          Respondents

                                     WITH
                WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 572 OF 2022

Pyar Singh Panwar                                 ......          Petitioner

                                 Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                   ......          Respondents


Counsel for the petitioner       :    Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal and Dr. N.K.
                                      Pant, learned counsel

Counsel for the respondents      :   Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Standing
                                     Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
                                 :   Mr. Bhupendra Bisht, learned counsel for
                                     respondent no.4.

                                     WITH
                WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 573 OF 2022

Keshav Lal Todariya                         ......                 Petitioner

                                 Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others             ......             Respondents


The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)

1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions, therefore, they are being heard and decided together. However, for the sake of brevity Writ Petition (S/B) No.32 of 2023, shall be the leading case.

2026:UHC:1779-DB

2. Petitioners were appointed as Junior Engineers in Rural Engineering Services Department (RES) of the State on different dates and all of them retired from service before 31.10.2017. Petitioners filed claim petition no.157/DB/2019 challenging Government Order dated 26.12.2017 issued by Secretary, Panchayati Raj and Rural Engineering Service whereby it was provided that pay scale for post of Superintending Engineer shall be upgraded from ₹15600- 39100/- grade pay 7600/- to ₹37400-67000/- grade pay ₹8700/- with immediate effect.

3. Petitioners also challenged order dated 01.11.2019 whereby their claim for pay scale, as upgraded vide G.O. dated 26.12.2017, was rejected. Learned Tribunal dismissed claim petition filed by petitioners on the ground that stipulation made in G.O. dated 26.12.2017, whereby cut-off date was fixed for grant of upgraded pay scale, is a policy decision of State, which cannot be interfered by the Tribunal. The operative portion of impugned judgment dated 31.10.2020 is extracted below:

"22. It shall, however, be open to the Govt. of Uttarakhand to review its decision. The discretion to issue a fresh G.O., on the lines of G.O. issued by the Govt. of U.P., to give financial benefits to the petitioners and similarly situate employees, from an earlier date, vests with the Govt. of Uttarakhand. The decision should, however, be well informed by reason.

23. We are given to understand that exercise for revising the grade pay of Rupees 7600 of the post of superintending engineer to Rupees 8700 from an earlier date is under way. The Government may consider the same at an early date so that some of the petitioners and similarly placed engineers in other departments may be benefited by the same. If the same is not possible, the Government may consider revising the pension of petitioners and similarly placed persons with effect from 31st October, 2017 worked out on the basis of their last pay as upgraded to level 13 on this date."

2026:UHC:1779-DB

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners were given 3rd ACP in grade pay of ₹7600/-, therefore, they are entitled to benefit of pay upgradation as granted by G.O. dated 26.12.2017. He submits that stipulation made in the said G.O. that benefit of pay upgradation would be given with immediate effect is unjust and arbitrary and benefit of pay upgradation should be made available to all persons similarly situate, including those who retired before 31.10.2017.

5. It would not be out of context to mention here that on 31.10.2017, Principal Secretary, Department of Finance had issued a communication addressed to Secretary of Public Works Department, Irrigation Department, Rural Engineering Service Department and Minor Irrigation Department informing them about in principle decision taken by the State Government to upgrade pay scale of Superintending Engineering to bring them at par with pay scale of Superintending Engineering serving under the Central Government. In paragraph no.3 of that G.O., it was mentioned that competent authority in each of the four departments mentioned would be at liberty to issue separate G.Os. providing for such pay upgradation.

6. The view taken by learned Tribunal that fixation of cut- off date is within domain of the Executive and thus a policy decision cannot be faulted. Law is well-settled that judicial interference with cut-off date fixed by the Executive can be in very limited circumstances and in the present case no such circumstance exists which would have warranted interference with cut-off date fixed.

2026:UHC:1779-DB

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. S.R. Dhingra & others reported as (2008) 2 SCC 229, while considering the similar case, has held as under:-

"25. It is well settled that when two sets of employees of the same rank retire at different points of time, one set cannot claim the benefit extended to the other set on the ground that they are similarly situated. Though they retired with the same rank, they are not of the same class or homogeneous group. Hence Article 14 has no application. The employer can validly fix a cut- off date for introducing any new pension/retirement scheme or for discontinuance of any existing scheme. What is discriminatory is introduction of a benefit retrospectively (or prospectively) fixing a cut-off date arbitrarily thereby dividing a single homogenous class of pensioners into two groups and subjecting them to different treatment [vide Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. of India [(2006) 11 SCC 709 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 529] , D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [(1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145] , Krishena Kumar v. Union of India [(1990) 4 SCC 207 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 112 : (1990) 14 ATC 846] , Indian Ex-Services League v. Union of India [(1991) 2 SCC 104 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 536 : (1991) 16 ATC 488] , V. Kasturi v. MD, SBI [(1998) 8 SCC 30 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 78] and Union of India v. Dr. Vijayapurapu Subbayamma [(2000) 7 SCC 662 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 1012] ]."

8. Similar view was expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Bihar Pensioners Samaj, reported as (2006) 5 SCC 65. Para 17 of the said judgment is reproduced below:-

"17. We think that the contention is well founded. The only ground on which Article 14 has been put forward by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the fixation of the cut-off date for payment of the revised benefits under the two notifications concerned was arbitrary and it resulted in denying arrears of payments to certain sections of the employees. This argument is no longer res integra. It has been held in a catena of judgments that fixing of a cut-off date for granting of benefits is well within the powers of the Government as long as the reasons therefor are not arbitrary and are based on some rational consideration."

2026:UHC:1779-DB

9. Upgradation of pay scale of Superintending Engineers to bring it at par with Superintending Engineers serving under the Central Government has financial implications. Having regard to the huge financial burden, which would have been imposed upon the State Government, it was decided that the benefit of pay upgradation would be given only from the date of issuance of Government Order. The Government Order was issued on 26.12.2017, while petitioners retired before issuance of Government Order dated 26.12.2017.

10. Having regard to the financial implications involved in upgradation the pay scales, State Government fixed cut-off date and anyone who was serving on that cut-off date is eligible for the upgraded pay scale. Since petitioners were not serving on that cut-off date, therefore, they cannot claim parity with persons who were serving on the cut-off date. The cut-off date fixed by the State Government cannot be said to be arbitrary, as there is a rational consideration for fixation of cut-off date. The reason for fixing cut-off date, according to the State Counsel, is financial implications as State Government does not have sufficient resources to pay upgraded pay scale to all those who have retired before the cut-off-date.

11. Learned State Counsel submits that if petitioners are to be given benefit of upgraded pay scale, then others, who retired several decades ago, can also not be denied benefit of upgraded pay scale and it would not be possible for the State to arrange necessary resources to meet the financial burden of upgraded pay scale to all retired employees.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees

2026:UHC:1779-DB Association & others vs. State of Maharashtra & others reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 100. In para 32 of the said judgment also, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that fixation of cut-off date for grant of benefits cannot be questioned and observed that what is within the domain of this Court, is to examine the impact of such fixation and whether it results in discrimination.

13. This Court is of the considered opinion that fixation of cut-off-date in the present case does not result in invidious discrimination and having regard to the financial burden involved, State Government had to fix cut-off date. Thus, cut-off date cannot be said to be arbitrary. Thus, we do not find any scope of interference with the judgment rendered by learned Tribunal.

14. The writ petitions, however, are disposed of by providing that the State Government may revisit the issue as per the observation made by learned Tribunal in para 22 and 23 of its judgment and pass appropriate order, as per law, within six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

______________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.

_______________ PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.

Dt: 13TH MARCH, 2026 Mahinder/ MAHIND Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

ER 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6c a168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5C DD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2

SINGH B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2026.03.20 18:31:13 +05'30'