2025:UHC:3947-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA 15TH MAY, 2025 WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 146 OF 2025 State of Uttarakhand and another. …Petitioners Versus Pankaj Kumar Yadav. …Respondent Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/ petitioners. : Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. Counsel for the respondent. : Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel. JUDGMENT : (per Sri G. Narendar, C.J.) Both the counsels submit that the issue, involved in the instant Writ Petition, has already been addressed by this Court in a connected Writ Petition, being Writ Petition (S/B) No. 148/2025, disposed of by this Bench by order dated 13.05.2025. The order rendered, while disposing of the said Writ Petition, reads as follows : “The short point involved in these petitions is that the petitioners have sought for recovery of certain portion of the pay paid to the respondents pursuant to their ad- hoc promotions. The case of the petitioners is premised on the ground that one of the conditions imposed while granting ad-hoc promotion is that in case of their reversion, the excess amount or portion of the pay, over and above their pay in their original cadre, would be recovered. 2. Having permitted the respondents to discharge duties in a promotional post by way of an order of promotion, it is needless to say that the occupant of the post would be entitled to the pay that is attached to the said post. 1 2025:UHC:3947-DB 3. It is not the case of the petitioners that the respondents were placed on in-charge basis, which would have enabled the petitioners from not paying the equal pay. 4. The concept of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is no more res integra. The respondents having discharged the duties lawfully in the promotional posts on account of orders of ad-hoc promotion issued by the petitioners, it not open to the Authorities to now turn around and place reliance on a condition imposed while granting promotion. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have paid more than the pay attached to the promotional posts. 5. In that view of the order and the reasoning of the Tribunal being legally sustainable and not warranting any interference, we do not perceive any necessity to retain the instant petitions on board. Accordingly, the instant writ petitions stand rejected. 6. Pending application, if any, also stands rejected accordingly.” 2. The submission of the learned counsels is placed on record. 3. The instant Writ Petition also stands disposed of, in terms of the order noted supra. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _______________ G. NARENDAR, C.J. _____________ ALOK MAHRA, J. Dt: 15th May, 2025 Rahul 2