SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 972449

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
SURESH SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY FOREST – Respondent
WPSS 1525 / 2017



##PAGE1##

2025:UHC:11573

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition No. 1525 (S/S) of 2017

Suresh Singh and others -------Petitioners

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others ------Respondents

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen Chandra Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the

State/respondents.

Hon’ble Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, J.

Petitioner has filed the Writ Petition with the

following prayers:

“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of

Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the

petitioner the minimum of pay scale of Class IV post.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of

mandamus directing the respondents to not to disturb

the functioning of the petitioner as Daily Wager

employee in the respondent department as the

petitioners are working in the department satisfactorily

for the last several years.”

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner nos. 1 & 2 are working since 2012 and

petitioner nos. 3 to 5 are working since 2014 as daily

wagers and at the time of filing of the writ petition they

were getting Rs. 6800/- per month. Learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of State of U.P. vs. Putti Lal, reported in 2002 (3)

1

##PAGE2##

2025:UHC:11573

AWC 2375 (SC) had dismissed the SLP filed by the State

of U.P and had confirmed the order passed by the

Hon’ble Allahabad High Court which had directed the

State Government of U.P. to frame scheme for

regularsaiton of daily wagers and further provided that

the daily wagers shall be paid the minimum of pay scale.

He submits that the State Government is liable to pay

minimum of pay scale of class-IV post to the petitioners

as they are working for more than 13 years and are not

being paid the minimum of pay scale despite the clear

directions/order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. He

further submits that the State Government of

Uttarakhand on 25.11.2021 had passed an order, by

which, the employees who were engaged subsequently

than the petitioners are being paid the minimum of pay

scale. He submits that Shri Jaiveer and Shri Shiv

Shankar were engaged in the year 2013 in the Forest

Division, Uttarkashi and similarly Shri Pawan Payal,

Ramesh Chandra and Krishnapal were engaged in the

year 2015 and 2016 and, as such, the persons who were

engaged subsequently than the petitioners are being paid

minimum of pay scale however, the petitioners are being

denied such pay scale and the said action of the

respondents is arbitrary and illegal.

3. Learned Standing Counsel was directed to seek

instructions with respect to the working of the petitioners

as in the counter affidavit it was stated that the

petitioners are not engaged and the said fact was

disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. The

instructions submitted by the respondent no. 3

(Divisional Forest Officer, Uttarkashi) on 10.11.2025

reveals that all the petitioners except petitioner No. 2

2

##PAGE3##

2025:UHC:11573

Bhagwat Singh are said to be working, and with respect

to the working of the petitioner no. 2, counsel for the

petitioner submits that he is not aware of the working of

the said petitioner, however, he submits that the period

till which, petitioner no. 2 had worked, he is also liable to

be paid the minimum of pay scale for the said period.

Counsel for the State submits that the persons whose

name had been referred by the petitioner and which find

place in the order dated 25.11.2021 passed by the

Secretary are being paid the said minimum of pay scale

in pursuance to the directions issued in the Contempt

Petition. However, the fact that the petitioners are

working prior to the working of the said persons named

above is not disputed by the counsel for the respondents.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties,

this Court is of the view that the case of petitioners is

liable to be considered for payment of minimum of pay

scale of class-IV post as they are working since more

than 10 years. The Hon’ble Ape

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top