IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 185 of 2009 Smt. Manorama Ghildiyal .……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others .………. Respondents Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for the respondents. Date of decision: 15-02-2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) The issue, which arises for consideration in the present petition, pertains to the fixation of the pay of the petitioner consequent upon the implementation of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission. While implementing the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, the petitioner’s pay was fixed at a stage lower than, that which was allowed to her juniors. It is, therefore, that the petitioner claimed fixation of her pay-scale, consequent upon the implementation of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, at least at the stage the pay of her juniors was fixed. In the first instance, the orders passed by the State Government were assailed by the petitioner by filing a claim petition before the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand. The aforesaid claim petition was, however, declined by the Public Services Tribunal vide an order dated 08.06.2009. The aforesaid order dated 08.06.2009 has been assailed by the petitioner through the instant writ petition. The solitary question, that has to be decided in the present controversy, therefore is, whether the petitioner is entitled to fixation at the same stage of pay, as has been allowed to her juniors. In so far as the instant issue is concerned, in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent no. 3, it is, inter alia, stated as under: “4. That it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Primary School, Kalura, Block Pabo, District-Pauri Garhwal in the year 1981 and submitted her joining 2 as such on 10.09.1981. After the completion of 10 years of service she was on 10.09.1991 granted the selection grade of pay. In the year 1995 she was promoted as Head Teacher but vide her letter dated 30.11.1995 and 12.04.1996 she requested for the forego of her promotion whereas the Assistant Teachers who were promoted in the meantime in the year 1996 and 1997 submitted their joining as Hear Teacher. 5. That the petitioner again was promoted as Head Teacher in the year 1999 and accordingly she submitted her joining on 06.07.1999. The petitioner is seeking parity with the pay of those employees who were promoted earlier in the year 1996 and 1997 which may not be sustainable inasmuch as the petitioner was promoted again in the year 1999 since she forewent her earlier promotion in the year, 1995. That raising her grievances the petitioner filed a writ petition no. 971 (M/S) of 2004 in the Hon’ble High Court, which was decided on 01.10.2004 with a liberty to her to approach the Tribunal and as a sequel she filed a claim petition no. 3 of 2005 before the learned Public Service Tribunal.” A perusal of the averments made in the counter affidavit, as have been extracted hereinabove, reveal, that juniors to the petitioner stole a march over her, when they were promoted to the post of Head Teacher, whereas the petitioner, who had been promoted earlier to them, had submitted letters dated 30.11.1995 and 12.04.1996, stating, that she desired to forego her promotion. Accordingly, at that stage, some Assistant Teachers junior to her were promoted to the post of Head Teacher, prior to her. The petitioner, herself, was eventually promoted as Head Teacher in the year 1999. In the sequence of facts noticed hereinabove, we are satisfied, that the claim of the petitioner to be allowed fixation of pay, consequent upon the implementation of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, at the same level as her juniors, cannot be acceded to. The alleged juniors, for the reasons indicated hereinabove, having stolen a march over her, are obviously entitled to a fixation at a higher stage than the petitioner, who was promoted as Head Teacher later than them. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 15.02.2010 15.02.2010 Amit