State Of Uttarakhand And Others vs Bhupendra Singh

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

The application, seeking condonation of 29 days’ delay in preferring the Special Appeal, is not opposed by Sri Yogesh Pacholia, learned counsel

for the respondent-writ petitioner, and the delay is, therefore, condoned. The application, seeking condonation of delay in preferring the Special

Appeal, stands allowed.

Heard Sri Anil Bisht, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Government-appellants and Sri Yogesh Pacholia, learned counsel

for the respondent-writ petitioner.

This Special Appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2264 of 2019 dated 03.12.2019. A

batch of writ petitions, i.e. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2250 of 2019 and batch, were heard together and, by the order under appeal, the learned Single

Judge, relying on the order passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 306 of 2011 dated 24.03.2017, directed the respondents to fix the salary of the petitioners

in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2600, along with arrears, pursuant to the Government Order dated 19.07.1989.

Sri Anil Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government-appellants, would contend that the learned Single Judge had erred in following

the order in Writ Petition (S/S) No.306 of 2011 dated 24.03.2017.

The stand of the appellants, as is reflected in the counter-affidavit filed by them in the writ petition, is that there were four categories in the post of

Laboratory Assistants carrying different scales of pay; while, at the bottom, Laboratory Assistants were extended the pay-scale of Rs. 354-550 & Rs.

454-600, at the top were Laboratory Assistants who were extended the pay-scale of Rs. 570-1100 and Rs. 830-1190; by proceedings dated

29.03.1989, one post of Laboratory Assistant, in the pay-scale of Rs. 570-1100, was sanctioned, that too on a temporary basis; and, while sanction for

the said post has been periodically extended, the benefit of such pay-scale can only be extended to the person occupying the post in terms of the

Government Order dated 29.03.1989, and others are not entitled to claim extension of similar benefits.

A Division Bench of this Court had, in its order in Special Appeal No. 274 of 2008 dated 18.02.2010, extended to the appellant therein the benefit of

the pay-scale of Rs. 570-1100, which was subsequently revised to Rs. 1400-2600, on the ground that the benefit of the pay-scale, which was extended

to Laboratory Assistants working in the plains cadre, was illegally denied to the Laboratory Assistants appointed in the hill cadre. Thereafter, when

several others sought a similar benefit of being extended the pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2600, a learned Single Judge of this Court, in his order in Writ

Petition (S/S) Nos. 350, 306, 307 and 348 of 2011, following the order of the Division Bench and the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of

Jharkhand & another v. Harihar Yadav & others : (2014) 2 SCC 114, set aside the Circular Order dated 10.02.2011, and directed the respondents

therein (appellants herein) to fix the salary of the petitioners in the revised pay-scale of Rs.1400-2600 pursuant to the Government Order dated

19.07.1989, within a period of six weeks along with arrears.

Sri Anil Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government, would contend that in none of the aforesaid cases was the attention of the Court

drawn to the fact that only one post of Laboratory Assistant was created in the pay-scale of Rs. 570-1100, which was subsequently revised to Rs.

1400-2600; and, since there was only one post, it was only the person, occupying the said post, who was entitled to such pay-scale and not others. He

would contend that the judgment of a Court is only an authority for what it actually decides and not what logically flows therefrom; and, since this

issue was not raised in the aforesaid cases, the appellants are not disabled from raising such a contention in the present writ petition.

While this submission, urged on behalf of the appellants, is not without merit, the fact remains that the respondent-writ petitioner has, in his writ-

affidavit, specifically stated that the pay of similarly situated Laboratory Assistants has been fixed in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2600 pursuant

to the Government Order dated 19.07.1989; by nature, attainment and circumstances, the duties and responsibilities of Laboratory Assistants, working

in the Animal Husbandry Department of the State, are one and the same; and the petitioner is senior to Sri Ramesh Chandra Tewari, who had been

extended the benefit of the revised pay-scale with effect from 01.01.1986 pursuant to the direction of this Court.

In the counter-affidavit filed in reply thereto, the fact that the duties discharged by Laboratory Assistants in different pay-scales are one and the

same; and that Sri Ramesh Chandra Tewari, who was junior to the respondent-writ petitioner, has been extended the benefit of the revised pay-scale

of Rs. 1400-2600 has not been denied.

As an employee junior to the respondent-writ petitioner has been extended the benefit of the revised pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2600, the appellants

are not justified in denying, to the respondent-writ petitioner herein, the benefit of the revised pay-scale. Albeit for the reasons mentioned in this order,

we see no reason to interfere with the order under appeal.

The Special Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.