IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 58 of 2007 State of Uttarakhand and others …….. …… Appellants Versus Jogendra Singh and others ....……… Respondents Coram:- Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Present: Mr. J.P. Joshi Advocate for the appellants. Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate for the respondents. Date of Decision: 19.02.2010 J.S. Khehar, C.J. (Oral) The respondents were working as Beldars. Their initial appointment was on daily wages in the work charge establishment. In due course of time, in terms of their conditions of service, they were regularised by the appellants. 2. As Beldars, they were being paid salary in the unrevised pay scale, although they had been claiming salary in the revised pay scale on the basis of the recommendations made by the Fifth Pay Commission. Since the appellants were not acceding to their claim, they approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No.1506 of 2003. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by holding inter alias as under:- “However, a writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to dispose of the claim of the petitioner by passing appropriate orders and pay the salary to the petitioners according to Vth Pay Commission and also the revised pay scale treating the service of the petitioner under the work charge establishment.” 3. The operative part of the aforesaid judgment, extracted hereinabove, is subject matter of challenge at the hands of the appellants. 4. It is the case of the learned counsel for the appellants, that the State Government has no difficulty, whatsoever, in accepting the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, limited to the grant of pay to the respondents, in the revised pay scale in terms of the recommendations made by the Fifth Pay Commission, however, the same should have been ordered only for the regular service rendered by the respondents. A perusal of the operative part of the impugned judgment dated 24.02.2006, extracted hereinabove, reveals that salary in the revised pay scales in terms of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission has also been allowed to the respondents for the period during which they had rendered service on work charge basis. 5. In order to repudiate the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, the sole contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is, that there is no distinction, whatsoever, in work charge service and regular service, and as such, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in directing the appellant to pay salary to the respondents, for the entire length of their service, including the period during which they were working as daily wagers on the work charge establishment. 5. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the rival parties, we are of the view, that the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants has to be accepted. There is a clear cut distinction of service rendered by the employees on daily wages on a work charge establishment, and regular service. The recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission have been rendered only for regular employees, and as such, the prayer made by the respondents to this Court, while filing Writ Petition (S/S) No.1506 of 2003, could only have been accepted for the period during which the respondents were rendering service on regular basis. That being so, the operative part of the impugned order, extracted hereinabove, is set aside, to the extent that it allows wages to the respondents in the revised pay scale during the period they were working on daily wage basis on the work charge establishment. 6. The instant special appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Sudhanshu Dhulia,J.) ( J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 19.02.2010 P.Singh