2025:UHC:5300-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS SPA No.535 of 2018 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vinay Kumar Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellants. 2. Ms. Shakshi Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 7. 3. Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State/ respondent no.8. 4. There is delay of 33 days in filing this special appeal. 5. Objection to the delay condonation application has not been filed by the respondents. For the reasons indicated in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing this special appeal is condoned. 6. This intra-court appeal is filed challenging final order dated 25.04.2018 passed in WPSS No.1094 of 2011, which is extracted herein below:- “The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that the petitioners have been discriminated against since the recommendations made by the Wage Board have not been applied uniformly to all the employees. This statement has been seriously refuted by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf the Management. His case is that the Wage Board’s recommendations have been made applicable uniformly. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed 2025:UHC:5300-DB of. The respondents are directed to apply the recommendations of Wage Board and Pay Commission uniformly to all the employees. It is clarified that if the similarly situate persons have been granted higher benefits, the case of the petitioner shall also be considered accordingly. ” 7. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the writ petition was filed by Employees’ Association in which employees serving in different capacity are member, out of which many are not governed by Wage Board, therefore, the direction issued by learned Single Judge to apply recommendations of Wage Board and Pay Commission uniformly to all members of the Association is erroneous. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 7 submits that Sugar Wage Board in its recommendation provides for different pay-scale for different category of employees, therefore, every employee would be entitled to the pay-scale admissible for the post he is holding. She further submits that counsel for the appellants made a statement before learned Single Judge that recommendations made by Wage Board are being uniformly applied to all employees, therefore, learned Single Judge rightly decided the writ petition in terms of the statement made by learned Senior Counsel. 9. We find substance in the submission made by learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 7. Learned Single Judge simply provided that recommendations made by Wage Board shall be made applicable across the Board to all eligible employees. 10. However, it goes without saying that 2025:UHC:5300-DB benefit of order passed by learned Single Judge would be available only to such employees, who are under the Wage Board and not to others. It also goes without saying that employees serving on an unskilled post will get the pay-scale meant for unskilled post and those serving against skilled post will get the pay-scale recommended for that post. 11. The Special Appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms. (Subhash Upadhyay,J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 23.06.2025 Kaushal/SS