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 1 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 2 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. 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa 08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF 0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.05.02 17:36:31 +05'30'