IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 18 of 2006 (S/B) 1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Science and Technology, Technology Bhawan, New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi. 2. Surveyor General of India, Hathibarkala Estate, Post Box No. 37, Dehradun. .......... Petitioners Versus Sri T. Pandey, (Rtd. Record Keeper, Division I, Survey General Office) S/o Sri Nardeo Pandey, R/o Gunyal Gaon, P.O. Sinauala, Dehradun and 29 Others ........... Respondents Mrs. Bina Pande, Standing Counsel (Central Government) for the petitioners. Mr. A.K. Uniyal, Advocate for the respondents. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon'ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon'ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. V.K. GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) This writ petition was earlier disposed of finally by the Division Bench vide its judgment dated 10th February, 2006. In Civil Appeal No. 4284/2006 decided by their Lordships of the Supreme Court on 22nd September, 2006, this judgment, however, was set aside and an order was passed by the Supreme Court directing that the matter be reconsidered afresh on merits. It is under these circumstances that this petition has come up once again for rehearing and reconsideration. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 15th April, 2004 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 16 of 2003 (U) filed by the respondents seeking pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/- at par with other Division-I staff. The Tribunal while allowing the said O.A. and quashing and setting aside the order dated 14th January 2003 passed by the writ petitioners which was under challenge in the aforesaid O.A. directed the writ petitioners to decide the representation of the respondents afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made by the Tribunal in the aforesaid impugned judgment dated 15th April, 2004. 3. A very short point is involve for consideration and adjudication in this writ petition. In the course of earlier adjudication, leading to the passing of the order dated 14th January, 2003 by the writ petitioners, the respondents-employees had raised a specific plea that Record Keeper Division-I is a promotional post and Record Keeper Division-II is the feeder post, in the sense that persons from out of the Record Keeper, Division-II on promotion are appointed as Record Keeper Division-I and yet both these posts carry the same pay scale of Rs. 4,500-7,000. The writ petitioners actually in the course of the order passed by them on 14th January, 2003 noted this contention of the respondents-employees. We reproduce hereinbelow the extract of the said order which did take notice of the aforesaid contention:- "The applicants have further stated that with the merger of the pay scales of Rs. 1350-2200 and Rs. 1400-2300, the feeder cadre of Record Keeper Division-II and promotional cadre of Record Keeper Division-I is having the same scale of pay, i.e. Rs. 4500-7000." 4. Unfortunately, however, the aforesaid contention has not at all been dealt with by the writ petitioners and no finding has been given with respect thereto and without dealing with the said contention, the writ petitioners rejected the representation of the respondents- employees. 5. It was indeed an important point for consideration. If Record Keeper Division-I is the promotional post and Record Keeper Division-II is the feeder post, whether it is reasonable, just, proper and rationale to have the same pay-scale for both the posts? This point did and does require consideration by the writ petitioners since it was left out of consideration in the order dated 14th January, 2003. 6. While thus upholding the Tribunal's judgment dated 15th April, 2004 and dismissing this writ petition, we direct the writ petitioners to consider afresh the representation of the respondents of course limited to the aforesaid aspect as well as in the light of the applicable Government Orders on the subject. The writ petitioners while deciding afresh shall not be influenced by the observations made by the learned Tribunal in the course of its judgment impugned in this writ petition. It shall however undoubtedly take into account the observations made by this Court in the present order. The representation of the respondents shall be considered and disposed of within four months from today. 7. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 21.02.2008 21.02.2008 LSR/VK