UKHC010049672026 2026:UHC:4927 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Service Single No.932 of 2026 17th June, 2026 Prem Singh Brijwal and others ……….Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……….Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Sushil Vashistha, learned S.C. with Mr. B.S. Koranga, learned B.H. for the State. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned C.G.S.C. for the Union of India/respondent no.3. Mr. Aman Rab, learned counsel for respondent no.5, through video conferencing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to pay salary/wages to the petitioners for the post of Pharmacist on the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, in view of law laid down by Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjeet Singh, reported in (2017) SCC 1 148. 2. It is case of the petitioners that petitioners are working with the respondent no.5-Mission Director, National Health Mission, Uttarakhand, for the last 10 years and more, as contractual Pharmacist. The petitioners are fully qualified to be appointed on the post of Pharmacist in the State Government. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have been working with the respondent- Department since long, therefore, they have matured a right to be paid salary as being paid to its regular selected/appointed Pharmacists with the State Government. 1 UKHC010049672026 2026:UHC:4927 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners admitted that petitioners are working with a project which is founded 90% by the Central Government and 10% by the State Government. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that services of the petitioners are perennial in nature and are required for smooth functioning of State and Central Government schemes in the Medical Health Department. He further emphasizes that petitioners are discharging the similar duties as being discharged by the regular Pharmacists in the State Government. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent(s) submits that petitioners are working in a project and they cannot be treated at par with the employees of the State Government, therefore, they cannot claim “equal pay for equal work”. 7. Be that as it may, this Court is not dealing with the merits of the case at this stage, however the petitioners are granted liberty to make individual representations to respondent nos.4 & 5 within two weeks’ from today; and if such representations are made by the petitioners separately and individually, respondent nos.4 and 5 shall take a decision on such representations by passing a well reasoned and speaking order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in dealing “equal pay for equal work” within three months from the date of such representation. 8. Accordingly writ petition stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 17.06.2026 SK 2