Gajendra Singh & Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Sharad Sharma, J.

This is bunch of eleven Writ Petitions as identical questions of facts and law are involved, hence, for the purposes of convenience they are being

disposed of together.

Out of this bunch of eleven Writ Petitions, the Writ Petition No. 3008/2018 is taken up as a leading case. In short, the petitioner has filed this Writ

Petition primarily is for the following reliefs (in some of the Writ Petitions there is minor difference in the relief, they are being referred separately):

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay prevailing minimum of pay scale and grade pay

alongwith arrears alongwith all consequential benefits to the petitioner as being paid to the regularly appointed employees working in the department

alongwith rate of interest.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue the work with the

department during the pendency of the writ petition.

(iii) Issue any other order or direction, which is deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner.

(iv) Award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.â€​

By virtue of the relief sought for, the petitioners have prayed for the payment of minimum of pay scale and grade pay along with arrears and they

have also sought a writ of mandamus for a direction to the respondent not to be discontinued their services on which according to the petitioners they

have worked for over a decades. For example, in the instant Writ Petition the petitioner has come up with the case that he was appointed as Class IV

(group-d) employee in the year 2002 on the consolidated monthly salary of Rs. 6,870/- as a muster roll employee. His case is that respondent no. 2 had

issued a letter No. 8433/1-14(4) dated 07th May, 2011 whereby a direction was issued to all the competent authorities under whom these Class IV

employees were working to pay to them minimum pay scale which was admissible at the relevant time i.e. 5,200/-.

The respondent no. 2 passed an order on 05.07.2010 wherein it was provided that minimum pay scale would be payable only to those daily wagers

who are covered by the judgment of Putti Lal, and have completed ten years of continuous service, would be getting minimum of pay scale, others

would get a lower pay scale. This order of respondent no. 2 was challenged in Writ Petition No. 300/2011 Atol Singh’s case and the same has

been quashed.

The counsel of the petitioner further supports his argument by virtue of letter/communication No. ka-8433/1-14(4) dated 07.05.2011 written by the

Principal Chief Conservator of Forest on the basis of the ratio as propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a judgment rendered in 2002 in Putti

Lal’s case as well as in case of Atol Singh, whereby, certain latitude with regards to the claim of regularization and the grant of minimum of pay

scale has been rendered in relation to those employees who have put in more than 10 years of continuous services. The petitioners contend that they

fall within the said category and thus they were entitled for the benefit accruing from the judgment of Putti Lal’s case, which has been made

applicable to the employees of the Forest Department working within the territory of Uttarakhand.

His case is that even the State of Uttarakhand has also revised the minimum of pay scale of the daily wagers of the Class III and Class IV

employees by the Government Order dated 04.01.2013 revised scale and enhanced it to Rs. 7,100/- (5,200+Grade Pay 1900 per month) for Class III

and Rs. 7,000 (5,200 + Grade Pay Rs. 1,500) for Class IV employees. He submits that despite of the recommendation made by the competent

authorities in particular that of the Principal Secretary, Uttarakhand Government on 12.03.2014 whereby in a communication made to the Principal

Chief Conservator Officers had directed the payments of arrears of minimum of pay scale @ 7,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and such various

other communications which has been brought on record by the petitioner. Respondent no. 2 had on 02.05.2014 directed all subordinate officers to pay

minimum of scale as per the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission. In continuation thereto the State by the Government Order dated

28.12.2016 recommended grant of benefit of 7th Pay Commission to the regularly appointed employees. The petitioners’ case was that since they

are performing similar work they would be entitled for the benefit accruing by the letter of respondent no. 2 dated 28. 12.2016. The respondent no. 2

yet again is said to have written to State on 17.04.2017 to take a decision on payment of pay scale to daily wagers. Following recommendations were

made:

“(i) As per record as on date against sanction post in the department “Group-Câ€​ and “Dâ€​ no daily wager in working.

(ii) As per available records prior to 6.2.2003 in the “Group-C†and “D†there are total 1369 daily wager are working and for this the creation

of 1369 supernumerary post in class-4th vide letter No. 448/1-14(4) dated 4.9.14 recommendation to the government has already been done.

(iii) That the posts of “Group-Câ€​ and “Dâ€​ total 1369 daily wager from 6.2.2003 are already working.

(iv) The minimum pay is paid to the above daily wager.â€​

In some of the Writ Petitions the petitioner had come up with the case that as soon as the petitioners filed the Writ Petition raising a claim for grant

of minimum of pay scale their services are being dispensed with by the respondents by passing the order which has been put to challenge by virtue of

the amendment sought in Writ Petition No. 801/2018.

The petitioner in present Writ Petition apprehends that he may too be meted out with the identical treatment of dispensation of services due to the

raising of claim of grant of minimum of pay scale.

To support his contention for the entitlement of minimum of pay scale the petitioner has pleaded in paragraph 14 & 17 wherein it refers to the

proceedings which has been decided by this Court and has attained finality with the dismissal of SLP by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Paragraph 14 &

17 are quoted herein below:

“14. That this case has a chequed history and so many daily wagers employees performing same work like petitioners have been filed a writ

petition before Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad as well as this Hon’ble High Court. However, it is pertinent to mention here

that on the basis of the decision taken by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Putti Lal’s Case the Forest Department preferred SLP

before Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 3634 of 198 and finally decided on 21.02.2002. Further to say that the

Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the daily wagers of State of Uttarakhand are also entitled for the same benefits. The operative portion of

the judgment dated 21.02.2002 is reproduced below for ready reference:

“So far as the salary is concerned, as we have stated in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh a daily wager in the State of Uttarakhand would be also

entitled to the minimum of pay scale as is available to his counter part in the government until his services are regularized and he is given regular scale

of payâ€​

That the similar matter writ petition No. 300 (S/S) 2011 Atol Singh the forest department filed Special Appeal before this Hon’ble High Court

and this Hon’ble High Court had been pleased to dismiss the special appeal and against the said order and writ petition no. 653 (S/S) 2012 Yusuf,

the department filed SLPs before Hon’ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the said petitioners

Yusuf and Atol Singh have now been regularized. Further to say that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as High Court

observed that the daily wagers would be entitled to pay minimum of pay scale until his services are regularized on the principle of equal pay for equal

work. Thus kind indulgence of this Hon’ble Court is very much required.â€​

It would be essential to briefly deal with the status of each of the Writ Petition as listed today. The ratio of law as would be applicable on them has

already been detailed in the aforesaid paragraphs.

(a) In the Writ Petition 412/2018 ‘Suresh Chandra and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others’ the fact pertaining to the claim for grant of

minimum of pay scale though remains the same but the petitioner herein by way of an amendment had prayed for quashing the order dated

05.02.2018, by virtue of which in compliance of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3166/2017, which was disposed of by this Court on

13.11.2017 directing the respondent to consider the representation, the representation of the petitioner was considered and the same has been rejected

holding thereof that the petitioners are not eligible for the grant of grade pay. Since these Writ Petitions are being disposed of directing the respondent

to reconsider the entire issue based upon the recommendations made by respondent no. 2 i.e. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to the State of

Uttarakhand, at present while disposing of the Writ Petition, this Court reserves the right of the petitioner to challenge the order dated 05.02.018, in

case if it is required in future.

(b) In Writ Petition No. 739/2018 ‘Praveen Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand’ in this case too the claim almost happens to be the same except the

challenge given to the order dated 20.01.2018 (Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition) by virtue of which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected in

compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3166/2017 almost assigning an identical reason holding that the petitioner was not

entitled for grant of pay scale. In this case too while the Writ Petition stands disposed of by the order being passed today, this will not adversely affect

the right of the petitioner to challenge the order dated 20.01.2018 impugned in the Writ Petition in an event if its required in future to be challenged

before this Court.

(c) In Writ Petition No. 800/2018 ‘Raj Kumar Joshi vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others’ it would be governed by the findings recorded in the

judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 3008/2018 i.e. a leading Writ Petition.

(d) Writ Petition No. 801/2018 ‘Akash Kumar and Another vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others’ in this case too the claim almost happens to

be the same except the challenge given to the order dated 20.01.2018 (Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition) by virtue of which the claim of the petitioner

has been rejected in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3166/2017 almost assigning an identical reason holding that

the petitioner was not entitled for the grant of pay scale. In this case too while the Writ Petition stands disposed of by the order being passed today,

this will not adversely affect the right of the petitioner to challenge the order dated 20.01.2018 impugned in the Writ Petition in an event if its required

in future to be challenged before this Court.

(e) In Writ Petition No. 829/2017 ‘Manoj Dutt vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others’ the said Writ Petition since being dismissed in default by an

order dated 08.05.2018 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court no separate order is being passed on the same.

(f) In the Writ Petition No. 1734/2017 ‘Shiv Ram vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others’ the relief for the grant of minimum of pay scale and its

arrears based on the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission almost happens to be identical to that as claimed in Writ Petition No. 3008/2018 but

the relief no. 2 is the challenge given by the petitioner to the impugned order dated 16.05.2017 wherein the claim for grant of benefit of the revised pay

scale has been rejected by the order dated 16.05.2017 in compliance of the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition (S/S)No. 212/2017 dated

01.02.2017. Since this Court is passing an order directing the respondents to reconsider the entire controversy in the light of the recommendations

made by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest as well as State while disposing of the Writ Petition this court is reserving the right of the petitioner

to challenge the order dated 16.05.2017 in future, if at all becomes necessary to do so.

(g) In Writ Petition No. 2101/2017 ‘Shakil Ahmad vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others’ primarily the relief which has been sought by the

petitioner is slightly different to that as claimed by the other writ petitioners as he has given challenge to the order dated 26.04.2017, whereby, the

services of the petitioner has been dispensed with and he has prayed for a writ of mandamus for reinstatement into the services. Since the issue being

distinct to the other Writ Petitions this Writ Petition is de-linked from the bunch of Writ Petitions.

(h) Writ Petition No. 3009/2018 ‘Krishan Kumar and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others’ the relief as sought for happens to be

identical to Writ Petition No. 3008/2018 ‘Gajendra Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others’ hence, this Writ Petition would stand disposed of

in terms of the judgment rendered in the leading Writ Petition.

(i) Writ Petition No. 3140/2017 ‘Jay Prakash vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others’ is also involving the identical facts and law as considered in

the leading Writ Petition No. 3008/2018, this Writ Petition too would stand disposed of in terms of the leading Writ Petition.

(j) Lastly, the Writ Petition No. 3234/2017 the relief sought is with regards to the merger of the services of the work charge establishment into the

regular services and since the Writ Petition already stands disposed of by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 08.11.2017 no fresh order is required

as the petition already stands disposed of.

Under these facts and circumstances, and looking to the humanitarian aspect as petitioners have worked over decades these Writ Petitions are

being disposed of directing respondent no. 2 to treat this Writ Petition as to be a representation and to decide the same within a period of two months

from date of service of the certified copy of the order by speaking and a reasoned order and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioners. Till the decision is taken on their claim raised by the petitioners for grant of minimum of pay scale or such other service benefits, which

they claim, their services would not be disturbed and they would be permitted to continue to remit their services.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of subject to the above observations.

There would be no order as to cost.