IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (1). Writ Petition No. 3128 (S/S) of 2001 Prakash Chandra Joshi. …………Petitioner. Versus Principal Secretary, PWD, Govt. of Uttarakhand, at Dehradun and others. ……… Respondents. (2). Writ Petition No. 3307 (S/S) of 2001 Deepak Kumar Arya. …………Petitioner. Versus Principal Secretary, PWD, Govt. of Uttarakhand, at Dehradun and others. ……… Respondents. (3). Writ Petition No. 3129 (S/S) of 2001 Ajay Pal Singh Bisht. …………Petitioner. Versus Principal Secretary, PWD, Govt. of Uttarakhand, at Dehradun and others. ……… Respondents. (4). Writ Petition No. 948 (S/S) of 2001 Kailash Chand Tiwari. …………Petitioner. Versus Principal Secretary, PWD, Govt. of Uttarakhand, at Dehradun and others. ……… Respondents. AND (5). Writ Petition No. 947 (S/S) of 2001 Basant Ballabh Punetha. …………Petitioner. Versus Principal Secretary, PWD, Govt. of Uttarakhand, at Dehradun and others. ……… Respondents. Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned counsel for the respondents. Smt. Beena Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. Dated : June 26, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J The controversy involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, hence all are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Grievance of the petitioners is that they are appointed in respondent department in the year 1990 in different months and prior to that they were working in different corporations and in the same department. Vide Government Order dated 12.06.1998, benefit of pay protection was provided to those employees who have served in any corporation, government undertaking, university and their services would be computed for the purposes of pay protection with effect from 01.02.1992. Petitioners have challenged the cut of date. 3. In the counter affidavit, it has been mentioned that Government Order dated 14.07.1999 further clarifies the facts mentioned in the Government Order dated 12.06.1998. Government Order dated 14.07.1999 provides that benefit of service and pay protection shall not be given to those persons who are working in university/ government undertaking / corporation prior to 01.02.1992. 4. Both these Government Orders are relating to Government Policy and it is a settled law that High Court cannot interfere with the policy matter. Consequently, I am not inclined to interfere with the Government orders. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J) 26.06.2008 SKS