2026:UHC:992 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1006/2014 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J Mr. I.P. Gairola, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents. 3. Petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1388 of 2013 seeking a direction to the competent authority to grant pay scale of `10,000-15,200/- to him w.e.f. 07.05.1998 and further to pay Grade Pay of `7,600/- w.e.f. 07.05.2006. 4. Coordinate Bench Disposed of the writ petition by permitting petitioner to make representation and the competent authority was asked to take decision on his representation within three months. 5. The Secretary, Technical Education Department has rejected petitioner’s representation, vide order dated 20.05.2014. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:- “a) issue a writ or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned O.M. dated 20-05-2014 (contained as annexure no. 8 to this writ petition). b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to pay the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200 to the petitioner w.e. 07-05- 1998 and further to pay Grade pay of Rs. 7600 w.e.f. 07- 05-2006.” 6. From perusal of the record, it is revealed that petitioner was initially appointed as ad-hoc Instructor (Commercial Practice) in a Government Polytechnic in the year 1978 and 2026:UHC:992 his services were regularised on the post of Instructor Commercial Practice), vide order dated 15.04.1986. Petitioner was thereafter given ad-hoc appointment as Lecturer (Commercial Practice), vide order dated 12.04.1988 and his services on the post of Lecturer was regularised on 13.02.2004. 7. Petitioner’s claim for pay scale of `10,000-15,200/- w.e.f. 07-05-1998 and Grade Pay of `7,600/- w.e.f. 07.05.2006 was rejected by the Secretary, Technical Education Department, by holding that in view of provision contained in Government Order dated 20.11.1993, benefit of first promotion pay scale is admissible only to regular employees, after eight years continuous satisfactory service, petitioner acquired status of regular employee, only on 13.02.2004, therefore, the said benefit was given to him w.e.f. 13.02.2004, after taking into account his eight years of ad-hoc services and the said benefit cannot be given to him from a date anterior to the date of his regularisation. The Secretary concerned further held that since as per the then prevailing Government Policy, the promotion pay scale in the Grade Pay of `7,600/- is admissible to a Government Servant only upon completing eight years of satisfactory service after the date of his regular appointment; since petitioner would have completed eight years period only on 13.02.2012; while, petitioner retired much earlier on 31.08.2011, therefore, the claim staked by petitioner for monetary benefits is inadmissible in the eyes of law. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that if petitioner had continued on the post of Instructor (Commercial Practice) to which he was initially appointed, then also, he would have received the Grade Pay of `7,600/- as promotion pay scale. 2026:UHC:992 9. Learned State Counsel disputes this submission by contending that petitioner did not serve on the post of Instructor after 1988, therefore, he cannot stake any claim on the basis of having served on the post of Instructor. He further submits that since Instructor was carrying a much lower pay scale, therefore, petitioner would not have become eligible for Grade Pay of `7,600/- as time scale/promotion pay scale, as alleged by petitioner’s counsel. 10. The reason assigned by the Secretary, Technical Education for rejecting petitioner’s representation cannot be faulted. For claiming benefit of Government Policy, one must fulfil all conditions of eligibility. Since one has to be regular in service, as per Government Order dated 20.11.1993, for getting benefit of first promotion pay scale, therefore the decision to grant said benefit to petitioner from the date of his regularisation on the post of Lecturer, cannot be faulted. Petitioner retired before becoming eligible for Grade Pay of `7,600/-, therefore his claim on that count is also unsustainable. 11. Admittedly, petitioner was regularised only in 2004, while he retired in 2011, much before completing eight years of service of regular appointment. Thus, there is no scope for interference. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 16.02.2026 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb 4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653 D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.02.17 17:45:29 +05'30'