IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 156 of 2008 State of Uttarakhand & another .………….Appellants Versus Village Panchayat Adhikari Association & another …..……Respondents. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. I.D. Paliwal, Advocate for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. It is not a matter of dispute that government employees are entitled to draw salary a higher pay-scale in case a promotional avenue does not become available to them for a substantial length of time. Insofar as the instant issue is concerned, the instructions issued by the State Government authorise an employee who has rendered 14 years of satisfactory service, to the first promotional pay-scale, if he has not during the said period been promoted to a higher post. Likewise on completion of 24 years of satisfactory service on the same post, an employee is entitled to the second promotional pay-scale. The respondents herein were substantively holding the post of “Village Panchayat Adhikari”. The first promotional post available to a “Village Panchayat Adhikari” is admittedly the post of Assistant Development Officer, whereas, the second promotional post is that of District Panchayat Raj Officer. Accordingly, if a “Village Panchayat Adhikari” who has rendered 14 years of satisfactory service has not attained any promotion in the meantime, he would be entitled to draw salary in the pay scale of the post of Assistant Development Officer. If a 2 promotional avenue has not become available to a Village Panchayat Adhikari, despite 24 years satisfactory service, he would be entitled to salary in the pay scale of the post of District Panchayat Raj Officer. The present controversy pertains to the second promotional pay-scale. The respondents had discharged their duties against the post of “Village Panchayat Adhikari” for a period of 24 years, whereafter, having treated them as having rendered satisfactory service, they were allowed to draw pay in the scale of the post of District Panchayat Raj Officer i.e. Rs. 6500 – 10500/-. The pay-scale to the post of District Panchayat Raj Officer, namely, 6500 -10500 was however revised to 8000 – 13500. The sole contention of the “Village Panchayat Adhikaris” i.e. the respondents herein who were placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 6500 – 10500 was, that they should be allowed the revised pay-scale of the District Panchayat Raj Officer. Since the respondents were not allowed the revised pay scale of the post of District Panchayat Raj Officer, they approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 475 of 2007. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 2.7.2008. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of the Writ Petition (S/S) No. 475 of 2007 the State Government has preferred the instant special appeal. It is not the case of the State Government that the pay-scale of Rs. 6500 -10500 allowed to the respondents on completion of 24 years of service was wrongfully allowed to them. It is relevant to mention that the pay- scale of 6500 – 10500 is that of District Panchayat Raj Officer which is second promotional avenue available to 3 the “Village Panchayat Adhikari”. Having unilaterally granted the second promotional pay-scale of 6500 – 10500 to the respondents, it is natural to infer, that the aforesaid pay-scale was allowed to the respondents validly. But then, the pay-scale of Rs. 6500 – 10500 attached to the post of District Panchayat Raj Officer was revised to Rs. 8000 – 13500. It is this revision which has been claimed by the respondents which was allowed by the learned Single Judge while disposing of Civil Writ Petition (S/S) No. 475 of 2007. Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that the respondents having rightfully been granted the second promotional pay-scale to the post of District Panchayat Raj Officer they were also entitled to the revision of the pay-scale of the said post, as and when it took place. It is not disputed that the pay-scale of the said post which was earlier 6500 – 10500 has been revised to Rs. 8000 – 13500, and as such, there can be no dispute that the respondents would be entitled to the same. It would be unfair on our part if we do not take into consideration the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the pay-scale of Rs. 8000 – 13500 has been released to only such District Panchayat Raj Officers who have been appointed as such by way of direct recruitment. It is pointed out that the pay-scale to those District Panchayat Raj Officers who were recruited by other sources has not yet been finalised, inasmuch as, the rules therefor are under finalisation. It is, therefore, submitted that till the finalisation of the rules depicting the pay-scale to the post of District Panchayat Raj Officers for those 4 appointed as such by way of a process other than direct recruitment, it would be improper to allow the respondents the second promotional pay-scale which is presently available only to direct recruits. It is not possible for us to accept the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants inasmuch as under the principle of “equal pay for equal work” irrespective of the source of recruitment, those who are required to discharge the duties to the post of District Panchayat Raj Officers will have to be disbursed salary in the same scale. Therefore, in our view, it is not possible to accept that another pay-scale different from the one released to direct recruits will be made available to the promotees, deputationists, transferred employees and the like, who hold the post of District Panchayat Raj Officers. We, therefore, find no merit in the instant contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. No other contention was advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellants. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant Special Appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J) 15.2.2010 Avneet