2026:UHC:2004-DB 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Service Bench No.496 of 2023 20 March, 2026 Anita Negi and Ors. --Petitioners Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Ors. --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence: Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for petitioners. Mr. G.S. Negi, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. (Oral) Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Petitioners were serving as Senior Administrative Officer before their promotion to the post of State Tax Officer. It is not in dispute that petitioners were promoted as State Tax Officer on 12.07.2016. While serving as Senior Administrative Officer, petitioners were getting salary in the Pay-Scale Rs. 9300-34800 + Grade Pay Rs.4800. Upon their promotion to the post of State Tax Officer, they were given salary in the Pay-Scale Rs. 9300-34800 + Grade Pay Rs.4600. 2. Petitioners made representation to the Commissioner Tax contending that upon their promotion, their Grade Pay cannot be reduced. The representation was rejected by learned Additional Commissioner (Special Grade Pay), on 18.08.2023 by holding that as per Government Policy, every government servant is entitled to salary admissible to the post which he holds, except in the case of ACP/MACP. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection order passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Special Grade Pay), petitioners have approached this Court. 2026:UHC:2004-DB 2 4. Respondent No.3 has filed counter affidavit. Delay in filing the counter affidavit is condoned. Counter affidavit is taken on record. Delay condonation application (IA/2/2024) stands disposed of. 5. Learned State Counsel refers to Para 12 of the counter affidavit filed by learned Additional Commissioner (Special Grade Pay), where, it is stated that upon promotion, only the Pay received in the Pay Band would be protected, however, Grade Pay of the petitioners will not be protected as Grade Pay is payable as per status of a post. 6. Learned State Counsel submits that petitioners were given pay protection as regards the Pay Band, however as the Grade Pay refers to status of post, therefore, petitioners cannot be given Grade Pay of Rs.4800/-, as it is admissible for a post higher than the post of State Tax Officer. 7. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned rejection order. Admittedly, petitioners had two promotional avenues available, one to the post of State Tax Officer and another to the post of Chief Administrative Officer, which is in the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-. Petitioners opted for the post of State Tax Officer with eyes wide open and they were at liberty to decline offer of promotion to the post of State Tax Officer; they would then be promoted as Chief Administrative Officer. Thus, doctrine of election would apply as they chose one of the options available to them, therefore, they cannot turn around and contend that the Pay Scale available to them is not to their liking. Thus, any interference with the impugned rejection order would be unwarranted. 2026:UHC:2004-DB 3 8. We have considered prayer No.(i) only, therefore, petitioners shall be at liberty to approach this Court for other reliefs, as and when cause of action arises. 8. In view of the above, the present writ petition fails and is dismissed. 9. Interim order, if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 20.03.2026 PN/-