IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 154 of 2006 State of Uttarakhand and others ….…… Appellants Versus Sanjay Upreti and others ………. Respondents Mr. B.K. Gupta, Addl Advocate General (State of Uttarakhand) for the appellants. Mr. K.N. Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. Date of Judgment: 18.11.2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) On a writ petition, registered as Writ Petition No. 3615 (S/S) of 2001 (Deepak Chandra vs. Basic Siksha Adhikari, Pithoragarh), and a connected writ petition, an order, to the effect as follows, as noted in the judgment and order under appeal, was passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court :- “Since the petitioners were appointed in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the respondents in the year 1993 and some of the persons who were appointed in pursuance to the same advertisement have been paid regular pay scale from their initial appointment, the petitioners are also entitled to get same pay scale.” In the writ petition, which stands allowed by the judgment and order under appeal, it was contended that since the petitioners were appointed, they are being paid consolidated salary of Rs. 850 per month, whereas others similarly situated to that of the petitioners are being paid salary in the regular pay scale of Rs. 1100 – 1710. Petitioners, accordingly, claimed salary in the same pay scale from the very date of their initial appointment. 2. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that in order to be appointed as Assistant Teacher of a junior basic school, the candidate is required to have a C.P.Ed. certificate from a recognized institution as prescribed in Rule 8 of U.P. Basic Education (Teacher) Service Rules, 1981. It was contended that the petitioners do not have such recognized C.P.Ed. 2 certificates, as they have C.P.Ed. certificates issued by Amrawati Maharashtra. It was stated that in view of an order passed by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, petitioners were given appointment on a fixed salary of Rs. 850/- per month. It was also stated that petitioners would be entitled to regular pay scale no sooner they would complete departmental D.P.C. training. The State Government, in the counter affidavit, therefore, distinguished the petitioners, who were being paid consolidated salary of Rs. 850/- per month and other Assistant Teachers of basic junior schools, who were being paid salary in the regular pay scale of Rs. 1100 – 1710. While rendering the judgment and order under appeal, despite noting the stand thus taken by the State, the learned Judge did not make any endeavour to ascertain whether, in fact, there is a difference between the petitioners on the one hand and the other Assistant Teachers of junior basic schools drawing salary in the regular pay scale on the other, and instead disposed of the writ petition on the conditions set forth in the order disposing of the said Writ Petition No. 3615 of 2001 (S/S). The learned Judge although recorded that the writ petition dealt with by him is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 3615 of 2001 (S/S), but did not make any endeavour to bring forth in the judgment under appeal as to whether the contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed to the writ petition was similar to the objections raised to Writ Petition No. 3615 of 2001 (S/S). 3. On that ground alone, we allow the appeal; set aside the judgment and order under appeal and remit back the matter to the writ Court for a fresh decision. It shall be open to the parties to bring on record such further pleadings and evidence in support of their contentions as they may deem fit and proper. We grant liberty to the learned counsel for the respondents – writ petitioners to mention the matter before the learned Single Judge for fixation of an early date of hearing. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 18.11.2010 18.11.2010 Amit