The main legal point established is that the petitioners were entitled to the increased pay scale as directed by previous judgments, and attempts to deny the benefit based on a government order were not acceptable.

JUDGMENT :

A set of six Instructors, including the Junior Instructors, who were working in the Government Industrial Training Institutions respectively, situated at Pines, Nainital, District Nainital, had earlier preferred a writ petition, before this Court being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1136 of 2006, Prakash Chandra Arya and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, wherein, the petitioners therein have contended, that the ITI concerned, in which they were working, and as it was established as back as in the year 1955, by the then State of Uttar Pradesh, now presently falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Uttarakhand, they have contended that the Department of Labour and Employment, had fixed different pay-scales, which were made payable to the Instructors ever since 1996, and at that relevant point of time, the petitioners contended that they were getting a pay-scale of Rs. 3200-4900/-, though their counterparts in other IITs were being paid with the higher pay-scale of Rs. 5800-8000/-. Hence, they contended that there was a disparity of payment of the pay scale which was payable to them with effect from 1st January 1996, as it was made admissible to the other similarly placed ITI of the State.

2. At that relevant point of time, when the writ petition was preferred on 11.10.2018, petitioner Nos. 1 & 3, who were appointed as Instructors in the Government Industrial Training Institute, Pines, Nainital, were in services, whereas petitioner No. 2, had already been retired from his services way back in 2013.

3. The coordinate Bench of this Court, in a judgement rendered on 4th May 2012, rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1136 of 2006, in which the petitioners were also one of the petitioners of the said writ petition being petitioner No. 2, 1 & 5 respectively therein, ought to have been extended with the same benefit in view of a writ of mandamus, which was issued by the judgement dated 4th May 2012, as observed in the operative portion of the judgement, rendered by the coordinate bench of this Court, which is extracted hereunder:-

“5. A mandamus is issued to the State Government to give forthwith the pay-scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- to the petitioners, as being increased by the State Government from time to time including all the arrears on the said pay-scale within a period of three months from today.”

4. Since the said judgment was not complied with, and since the same was not made effective, one of the petitioners therein i.e. the petitioner in the Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1136 of 2006, Mr Abhay Kumar Shrivastava, was constrained to file a writ petition being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 88 of 2016, which came up for consideration before the coordinate bench of this Court, and the co-ordinate bench of this Court, while considering the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit disposed of the writ petition, with the directions to the State of Uttar Pradesh, to grant the benefit of the pay scale of Rs. 5800-8000/- with effect from 1st January 1996, till the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, and all other dues, as admissible under law. The relevant observations which had been made by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgement dated 3rd May 2017, is extracted hereunder:-

“It has come in the counter of the State of Uttarkahand that the petitioner has been paid his dues w.e.f. 9.11.2000 but between 1.1.1996 till 8.11.2000, it is to be paid by the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the direction to the State of Uttar Pradesh to grant the benefit of pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1996 till 8.11.2000 within ten weeks from today.”

5. Based on the aforesaid judgement, the learned counsel for the petitioner had, in para 13 and 14 of the writ petition has pleaded, that the directions, as given by the coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 88 of 2016, which was based upon an earlier judgement, which was rendered in