Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttarakhand & Others ... vs Rai Singh Negi & Another on 2 April, 2019
Bench: Ramesh Ranganathan, N.S. Dhanik
THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 148 of 2019
With
Delay Condonation Application No. 2592 of 2019
State of Uttarakhand & others .....Appellants
Vs.
Rai Singh Negi & another ...Respondents
Present:
Mr. A.K. Bisht, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/appellants.
Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the respondents-writ petitioners.
Dated: 02nd April, 2019
Coram: Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.
Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J.
Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) The delay in preferring the appeal is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents and the delay is, therefore, condoned.
2. This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 2876 of 2017 dated 27.09.2018. The respondents herein filed WPSS No. 2876 of 2017 seeking a direction to quash the report of the 5th respondent dated 28.07.2017, and the order of the 4th respondent dated 28.06.2017; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to give the petitioners' salary as fixed by the office order dated 12.03.2013.
3. It does not appear to be in dispute that the pay scale of Head Constables were revised from 01.01.2006, and constables, who were not promoted for 14 years were extended the benefit of upgradation, and to draw the pay applicable to a Head Constable and, after 24 years of service, to be given a second upgradation, and to be permitted to draw salary equivalent to that of a Sub-Inspector. The Government of Uttarakhand introduced a scheme on 17.10.2008 in terms of which Head Constables, who were in the pay scale of Rs. 5500- 2 9000 were placed in the revised pay scales. While Sri Anil Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, would contend that the earlier pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 was revised to Rs. 9300-34800 with a grade pay of Rs. 4200, Sri Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners, would draw our attention to a letter dated 12.02.2013 issued by the 4th respondent, inviting options from eligible constables in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000, to be extended the benefit of the scheme issued by the Government of Uttarakhand on 17.10.2008. Sri Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners, would submit that, since the respondents-writ petitioners has exercised options pursuant to the said letter dated 12.02.2013, they were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 10230- 14430 by the 4th respondent, and were extended total pay of Rs. 14430 (basic pay scale of Rs. 10230 + grade pay of Rs. 4200).
4. On the ground that the Commandant had no authority to extend the time for exercising option, the impugned order dated 19.01.2016 was issued amending the earlier order dated 12.03.2013, and placing the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 9300-43800, along with a grade pay of Rs. 4200, thereby reducing the petitioners' pay by Rs. 830 per month.
5. On the respondents-writ petitioners invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, the learned Single Judge observed, in the order under appeal, that, if as was contended by the appellants, options had been invited twice, then atleast one employee should have opted for pay revision; however none of the employees had so opted; and he found considerable force in the submission, made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that they were not informed about the Government order dated 17.10.2008.
6. The learned Single Judge, thereafter, observed that, in any case, since the Commandant, 40th Battalion, PAC gave 3 the petitioners option which they exercised, it must be assumed that the time, for submitting options, had been extended by the respondents. There is no whisper in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition as to whether any other individual had exercised option earlier. It is for the first time, in the present appeal, that the appellants' claim that around 124 employees had exercised their options soon after the notification dated 17.10.2008 was issued.
7. In the absence of any such averment, in the counter affidavit filed by the appellants in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted for recording the finding that none of the employees had exercised options. In any event, the learned Single Judge cannot be said to have erred in holding that the letter furnished by the Commandant, inviting options, must be held to be an extension of time for submitting options.
8. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge, to the extent he held that the petitioners had opted for the scheme notified in the Government Order dated 17.10.2008; and they were entitled thereby to the benefits thereunder. The fact remains that the actual entitlement of the petitioners to the benefits of the Government Order dated 17.10.2008 necessitates computation and determination by the authorities concerned. While Sri Anil Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, would contend that, even in terms of the Scheme, constables are entitled only to be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 9300-43800 with a grade pay of Rs. 4200, Sri Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners, would contend that, in terms of the Government Order dated 17.10.2008, all Head Constables are entitled to be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 10230-40430 with a grade pay of Rs. 4200.
49. It is wholly unnecessary for us to dwell on this issue, as the learned Single Judge has directed the appellants herein to pass a fresh order fixing the pay scale of the respondents-writ petitioners. We modify the order of the learned Single Judge to the limited extent that the appellants herein shall put each of the respondents-writ petitioners on notice individually, enclosing thereto a copy of the entire scheme notified in the Government Order dated 17.10.2008, informing them of the pay scales to which they are entitled to be placed in, and furnishing details of the manner in which the appellants had arrived at the pay scale to which the respondents-writ petitioners were entitled to.
10. On receipt of such a notice, each of these respondents-writ petitioners shall be entitled to submit their objections thereto within three weeks from the date of receipt of the notice. The appellants shall, thereafter, consider each of these objections, and pass individual orders assigning reasons for their fixing the respondents-writ petitioners in the pay scale to which they are entitled to. The entire exercise, culminating in a reasoned order being passed determining the pay scales of the respondents-writ petitioners, shall be completed within four months from today.
11. The Special Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.
12. Let a copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties, on payment of usual charges, within one week from today i.e. on or before 09.04.2019.
(N.S. Dhanik, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.) 02.04.2019 A.kaur