The main legal point established is that once a benefit is extended, the party is estopped from denying it later, and financial constraints are not a valid reason to deny rightful dues.

JUDGMENT :

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Though, this matter is listed today on an Urgency Application, being IA/11955/2022, which has been preferred by the petitioner, but with the consent of the parties to the Writ Petition itself, the same is being heard finally on its own merit.

2. In almost all the writ petitions, which are connected with this bunch matters, the petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents, to grant them upgraded grade pay of Rs. 2800/- to Rs. 4200/- by extension of the benefit as contemplated as per the Government Order dated 5th October 2015, as it had been issued by respondent No. 1, as well as a consequential Government Order, which had been issued in compliance thereto, i.e. Government Order dated 28 October 2016.

3. Simultaneously, they have also prayed for, that after the determination of the upgraded pay scale, based on the two Government Orders, they may also be paid with the interest, which would be due to be paid to them with effect from the date, when the other similarly placed employees were already extended with the benefit of grant of upgradation of the pay scale.

4. Brief facts of the case are, that the petitioners contended that they are Group-D employees, who are presently working with the respondents and they have submitted that responded No. 3, based on a communication dated 22nd October 2016 which was made to respondent No. 2 herein, had sought for requisite direction for the purposes of fixation of the pay-band and the grade-pay, which will they would be entitled to be paid to Group-D employees in the respective Division of the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends, that in furtherance of the aforesaid communication sought by the respondent No. 3 from the office of respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 2, vide its letter dated 28 October 2016, had given direction, that the Government Orders, based on which the pay scale was upgraded i.e. 15 October 2016, is still in force, and the promotional grade pay may be given to the petitioners and such similarly placed Group D employees from the date of the application of the Government Order dated 15 October 2015.

5. The Government Order dated 28 October 2016, which has been annexed with the writ petition, it rather refers to the earlier Government Order dated 15 October 2015, whereby they have reiterated the stand that the Government Order No. 377/11/2015-01(09)/2020 dated 15th October 2015, was enforced to be made effective with immediate effect, in order to extend the benefit of the upgraded pay scale to the industrial establishments and the Group-D employees, working in it, in order to bring them within the ambit of grant of upgraded pay scale, which has been prayed for by the petitioners to be granted to them in the writ petition for the grant of grade pay of Rs. 4200/- by enhancing from the earlier grade pay of Rs. 2800/-.

6. The facts, which has come on record are, that as a consequence of the Office Memorandum dated 28th October 2016, in fact, the respondent had proceeded to extend the benefit of upgraded pay scale to the list of employees, whose name has been projected by the petitioner in Annexure 4 to the writ petition, who where the employees, who were working in the irrigation work shop, and had already been given with the upgraded pay scale of Rs. 5200/- to Rs. 20200/- with grade pay of Rs. 2400/-.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that since there was a disparity in the pay scale and the petitioners were not being meet out with an equal treatment, they have represented the matter before the respondents, by filing a representation dated 28th December 2016, contending thereof that they too should be brought within an upgraded pay and should be paid with grade pay of Rs. 4200/- in place of Rs. 2800/-, which was being initially paid to them.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that when despite several requests made by the petitioners and when the same was not paid to t