The main legal principle established is the requirement for parity in pay scale among similar cadre of employees, as mandated by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

Briefly stated facts are that the petitioners’ before this Court had been appointed in the Department of Medical Health and Family Welfare, on the post of Lab Technicians, as against their respective dates of their appointment. They have contended, that after their respective appointments made, they have been working with the respondents with an unblemished service records.

2. Because of the fact, that there was a disparity in the payment of the scale of salary, which was made admissible to be paid to the Lab Technicians, like that of the petitioners, who were serving in the Medical Department, and qua their counterparts, who were working with the Central Government or with the other State Governments.

3. To remove this disparity in scale, the Government had issued a Government Order on 15th April 2010, whereby the scale of the employees of petitioner cadre, was upgraded from Rs.4000- 6000, it was revised to be made payable to Rs.5200- 20200, with the grade pay admissible and payable on it of Rs.2400, which was further enhanced revised to Rs.9300- 34800, with the grade pay of Rs.4200.

4. The similar upgraded pay scale, as enforced to be made payable by the Government Order of 15th April, 2010, in relation to the Lab Technicians serving in the Medical Department, as compare to that of the similar cadre employees of the Central Government, as it was to be similarly made applicable to the X-Ray Technicians, working with the State Government, by virtue of the Government Order which was issued on 27th October 2010, in fact the purpose and benevolent purpose of the Government Order dated 27th October 2010, was to remove the disparity salary payable, in the payment of the scale between the Lab Technicians and that of the X-Ray Technicians and Dental Hygienist, working with the State Government.

5. The category of the Technicians, who had been working with the respondent/State, has been classified into three wider classes of Technicians i.e. (1). Technicians serving with the Medical Department (2). The Lab Technicians and (3). Dental Hygienist. Though the scale which was made payable to Lab Technicians, and the Technicians in the Medical Department, as compare to that of the Central Government, was enhanced and upgraded, but the similar pay scale with regards to the post of the Technicians, which were upgraded by the Government Order of 15th April 2020 and 27th October 2010, but no decision of upgradation in payment of scale was taken in relation to the remaining third type of technicians i.e the Lab Technicians, the cadre to which the petitioners’ belong. They had been agitating their claim persistently, before the State Government by filing their representation, but no decision was taken, on the same.

6. Two of the similar Lab Technicians cadre employees have preferred a writ petition, before this Court being Writ Petition (S/S) No.118 of 2012, “Pawan Kashyap and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others”, the coordinate Bench of this Court, instead of venturing on the merits of the matter had rather disposed of the writ petition by a judgment dated 24th January 2012, thereby directing the respondent no.3, to take a decision in the matter qua the claim of the payment of the increased grade pay, as it has been made applicable to the other class of Technicians, to be similarly made applicable to the Lab Technicians working in the Government Hospital. In fact, for the purposes of deciding the present controversy, the extract of the entire judgment of 24th January, 2012, is required to be extracted in the present judgment in order to substantiate their claim, which was raised by the petitioners therein, it was in relation to the claiming of the equivalence of the scale as it was made payable to two other branches of Technicians. The judgment, as such, rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court is extracted hereunder:-

“Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are workin