‘I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL HON’BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J HON’BLE MR. ASHISH NAITHANI, J SPECI AL APPEAL No. 650 of 2017 State of Uttarakhand and Others …Appellants Versus Kushlanand Gaur and Others …Respondents Counsel for appellant : Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy Advocate General.

JUDGMENT : (per HON’BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.

There is no representation on behalf of respondents.

2. State of Uttarakhand has filed this intra-Court Appeal, challenging the judgment and order dated 23.03.2017, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1721 of 2015. By the said judgment, the Writ Petition, filed by writ petitioners (respondents herein) was allowed, and it was held that writ petitioners are also entitled to get minimum of pay scale, including the Grade Pay, with effect from 01.01.2006. The impugned judgment is extracted below:-

“

Petitioners were working with the respondent-Department in various capacities including Fire Watcher, Moharris, Drivers etc. The grievance of the petitioners, precisely, is that they are not being paid the minimum of pay scale after 2013 which is paid to their counterparts who are discharging the same on similar duties.

The stand taken by the State Government in the counter affidavit is that since the petitioners have not been appointed against the regular posts, they cannot be paid the minimum of pay scale.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the basis of record, submits that the similarly situated persons, who were also not appointed against the sanctioned posts, are being paid the minimum of pay scale throughout the State of Uttarakhand.

CMWP No.15302 of 1993 was filed before the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court claiming D.A. etc. The petition was allowed on 21.8.1995. Against the judgment dated 21.8.1995, Special Appeal No.653 of 1995 was preferred. The Division Bench partly allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment dated

21.8.1995.

Vide judgment dated 21.2.2002 passed in Civil Appeal No.3634 of 1998 ‘State of U.P. & others v. Putti Lal’, their Lordships of Hon. Supreme Court, have observed that the appropriate authority will consider the case of daily wagers sympathetically and till then, they should be paid the minimum of pay scale.

Now, the respondent-State cannot go against the dicta of Hon. Supreme Court rendered in the above-cited case. The petitioners are entitled to the minimum of pay scale on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. Petitioners are discharging the similar duties as are being discharged by their counterparts and the minimum educational qualification, responsibility and duties are also the same. It is settled law that the equals cannot be treated unequally. The action of the respondents, in denying the minimum of pay scale to the petitioners, is declared arbitrary, unreasonable and thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

It would be apt at this stage to mention that the similarly situated persons had also approached this Court by way of filing WPSS Nos.1284 of 2011, Rajendra Singh Rawat & others v. State of Uttarakhand & others, and other analogous matters. These petitions were decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 10.12.2013 whereby the respondents-State was directed to pay minimum of the pay scale including grade pay to the petitioners, therein, w.e.f. 1.1.2006. In view of this judgment, the present petitioners are also entitled to get minimum of pay scale including the grade pay w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

Accordingly, all these petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to pay and release the minimum of pay scale to the petitioners along with the Grade Pay within a period of ten weeks from today. Arrears be also paid calculating the interest @ 12 per annum.

Orders, under challenge, in all these petitions, are quashed and set aside.

All the applications also stand disposed of.”

3. Appellants have challenged the said judgment, by contending that writ petitioners were appointed