Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, PANKAJ PUROHIT
Darshan Singh Rawat – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
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 th
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.
The court upheld the validity of limiting pay scale benefits to current employees as a justified administrative action, emphasizing financial constraints in determining eligibility for revised pay sc....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court will not entertain appeals seeking to re-open decided matters without pointing out any illegality or infirmity in the previous order....
The court affirmed the principle of equal treatment under Article 14, ordering the extension of retroactive pay benefits to applicants similar to counterparts in other departments.
Denial of updated pay scales to similarly situated employees violates constitutional equality, mandating uniform benefits based on judicial precedents.
The tribunal affirmed that similar employees' pay should be upgraded equally, addressing violations of equality in pay scales and ensuring equitable treatment among all central government employees.
Tribunal upheld employees' entitlement to retrospective pay fixation from 1996, emphasizing equality under law for similarly situated individuals.
Equal pay for equal work mandates uniform application of benefits across similarly situated employees, reinforcing that arbitrary denial of pay parity violates constitutional principles.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
