The court upheld the validity of the State's power to fix cut-off dates for pay upgrade benefits, affirming that such decisions are non-arbitrary and based on financial considerations.

JUDGMENT:

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions, therefore, they are being heard and decided together. However, for the sake of brevity Writ Petition (S/B) No.32 of 2023, shall be the leading case.

2. Petitioners were appointed as Junior Engineers in Rural Engineering Services Department (RES) of the State on different dates and all of them retired from service before 31.10.2017. Petitioners filed claim petition no.157/DB/2019 challenging Government Order dated 26.12.2017 issued by Secretary, Panchayati Raj and Rural Engineering Service whereby it was provided that pay scale for post of Superintending Engineer shall be upgraded from Rs.15600- 39100/- grade pay 7600/- to Rs.37400-67000/- grade pay Rs.8700/- with immediate effect.

3. Petitioners also challenged order dated 01.11.2019 whereby their claim for pay scale, as upgraded vide G.O. dated 26.12.2017, was rejected. Learned Tribunal dismissed claim petition filed by petitioners on the ground that stipulation made in G.O. dated 26.12.2017, whereby cut-off date was fixed for grant of upgraded pay scale, is a policy decision of State, which cannot be interfered by the Tribunal. The operative portion of impugned judgment dated 31.10.2020 is extracted below:

“22. It shall, however, be open to the Govt. of Uttarakhand to review its decision. The discretion to issue a fresh G.O., on the lines of G.O. issued by the Govt. of U.P., to give financial benefits to the petitioners and similarly situate employees, from an earlier date, vests with the Govt. of Uttarakhand. The decision should, however, be well informed by reason.

23. We are given to understand that exercise for revising the grade pay of Rupees 7600 of the post of superintending engineer to Rupees 8700 from an earlier date is under way. The Government may consider the same at an early date so that some of the petitioners and similarly placed engineers in other departments may be benefited by the same. If the same is not possible, the Government may consider revising the pension of petitioners and similarly placed persons with effect from 31^st October, 2017 worked out on the basis of their last pay as upgraded to level 13 on this date.”

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners were given 3rd ACP in grade pay of Rs.7600/-, therefore, they are entitled to benefit of pay upgradation as granted by G.O. dated 26.12.2017. He submits that stipulation made in the said G.O. that benefit of pay upgradation would be given with immediate effect is unjust and arbitrary and benefit of pay upgradation should be made available to all persons similarly situate, including those who retired before 31.10.2017.

5. It would not be out of context to mention here that on 31.10.2017, Principal Secretary, Department of Finance had issued a communication addressed to Secretary of Public Works Department, Irrigation Department, Rural Engineering Service Department and Minor Irrigation Department informing them about in principle decision taken by the State Government to upgrade pay scale of Superintending Engineering to bring them at par with pay scale of Superintending Engineering serving under the Central Government. In paragraph no.3 of that G.O., it was mentioned that competent authority in each of the four departments mentioned would be at liberty to issue separate G.Os. providing for such pay upgradation.

6. The view taken by learned Tribunal that fixation of cut- off date is within domain of the Executive and thus a policy decision cannot be faulted. Law is well-settled that judicial interference wit