The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners had exercised their option within time as per the Government Order dated 17.10.2008 and were entitled to the benefits thereunder.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral). - Since common question of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions, they are being decided by this common judgment.

2. This is third round of litigation. The petitioners, who were initially appointed as Constables in the Provincial Armed Constabulary (for short, "PAC") were given pay scale of the Head Constables, after completion of 14 years of services. After completion of 24 years of service, they were entitled to another higher pay scale. The period of 24 years of service was to fall after 01.06.2006, the day from which, the recommendations of Sixth Pay Commission (for short, "PC") were made applicable. In the State of Uttarakhand by a Government Order dated 17.10.2008, the recommendations of Sixth PC were made applicable and options were invited from the employees to give their options within a period of 90 days.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they were never informed about the Government Order dated 17.10.2008. It is only after the lapse of about 5 years, the respondent no. 4 sought options from the petitioners by a letter dated 12.02.2013. The petitioners gave their options to grant benefit of Sixth PC from the date of acceptance of pay scale that is w.e.f. 15.03.2006. Accordingly, the pay of the petitioners was revised on 12.03.2013. But again, on 19.01.2016, the pay scale of the petitioners was reduced to a lower grade. This order dated 19.01.2016 was challenged by the petitioners in a bunch of writ petitions, i.e. Writ Petition (S/S) No.l606 of 2016 and connected writ petitions (for short, "the first writ petition"). The first writ petition was allowed by the Court on 27.03.2017. The order dated 19.01.2016, by which the pay scale of the petitioners was reduced, was quashed with the liberty to the respondents to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law, with a further rider that the amount already paid should not be recovered. The matter was further considered by the department and the claim of the petitioners was again rejected, by the order dated 19.01.2016, Aggrieved by it, another bunch of writ petitions came up for consideration before this Court, namely, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2876 of 2017 and connected matters (for short, "the second writ petition) which were decided by this Court on 27.09.2018. The Court allowed the writ petitions and observed "in my considered view, the respondents have committed gross illegality in passing the orders impugned........... Orders impugned are set aside so far same relate to petitioners. The respondents are directed to pass a fresh order fixing the pay-scale of the petitioners taking in account the observations made by this Court in the body of the judgment..............."

4. It would be necessary to reproduce as to what observations were made by this Court in the second writ petition on 27.09.2018. In paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment, this Court observed as hereunder:-

"12. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the papers available on record. As far as submission of learned Deputy Advocate General that petitioners were given opportunity twice to submit their options is concerned, if this contention is taken to be true, in that event, at least one employee should have opted for the pay revision; but, none of the employees have opted, therefore, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were not informed about the Government Order dated 17.10.2008; but, in any case, when the then Commandant, 40th Battalion, P.A.C. gave opportunity to the petitioners, then it will be assumed that time for submitting options was extended by the respondents.

13. Moreover, it is a case where the petitioners claimed the benefit of VIth Pay Commission Report, benefit of which has already been given to other employees, therefore, I do not think that the case of the petitioners should be declined on the ground that options w