IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 611 of 2010 Sri Chandan Singh Yadav and others …Petitioner Versus Secretary Education, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun and others …Respondents Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Advocate present for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned standing counsel present for the respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners no. 1 to 5 are Computer Programmer and petitioner no. 6 is System Analyst and they were working under a project in the Education Department of the State. Their engagement is contractual in nature and they are getting consolidated amount per month known as “honorarium”. The grievance of the petitioners is that the other similarly situated persons who are Computer Operators, etc. are getting higher salary than the petitioners in the department under the same scheme. In addition to this they are getting some other allowances whereas the petitioners are deprived of the same. Earlier the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 22.03.2010 by a learned Single Judge directing the State Project Director to decide the representation of the petitioner. The order dated 22.3.2010 reads as under :- “Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Advocate present for the petitioners. Mr. K.C. Tiwari, Brief Holder for the respondents. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition contending that they are entitled to dearness allowance and other allowances that are paid to similarly situated persons. In this regard, the petitioners have made representation dated 16th July, 2009 before the 2 State Project Director-respondent No. 2 who in turn has sought instructions from the Addl. Secretary, Basic Education. It is alleged that even though instructions were sought by respondent No. 2 as far back as in the 2009 but the representation of the petitioners have not been disposed of so far. Considering the facts and circumstances that has been brought on record. I dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the respondent No. 2 to decide the representation of the petitioners dated 16th July 2009, annexure 14 to the writ petition, within three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order.” Their representation was subsequently decided but no relief as prayed by them was given to them. Hence the present writ petition. The petitioners expressed that they have not been given the benefit as given to the other Computer Operators, etc. working in the same department under the same project for the reasons that there is a government order dated 20.12.2004 according to which they have to be given D.A. as well as House Rent Allowance and in the order, the Computer Programmer and System Analyst is not shown. This order has been passed by the State Project Director in a narrow sense. What has been examined was the parity between the petitioners and other similarly situated persons as the Computer Operators etc., who are also working in the same department and are getting other allowances, which have been deprived to the petitioners. This cannot be denied to them merely because there is no government order in their favour. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that similarly situated persons working in the Hiltron have been given higher salary than the petitioners. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that if the petitioners move a 3 representation raising their all grievances before the Secretary, Education Department, Government of Uttarakhand the same shall be decided as expeditiously as possible but definitely within eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him and the Secretary, Education Department is directed to examine the same issue as to whether the same benefit is also liable to be given to the petitioners keeping in mind the nature of the work which is similar to those employees who are getting more amount. The Secretary Education Department, Government of Uttarakhnad shall examine the matter on the basis of the parity and not in the narrow manner in which it was decided earlier. With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated: 29.08.2011 VKG