IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.967 of 2009 (S/S) Bhim Singh & another ………..Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …….Respondents Shri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Anil Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents. Dated: 28th November, 2011 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Deputy Conservator of Forest, Forest Division Chakrata, Kalsi issued an advertisement on 14.07.2008 inviting application from the seasonal workers for the posts of Forest Guard. In pursuance of the said advertisement, petitioners applied and appeared in the examination held on 16.11.2008. On 17.11.2008, the respondents declared the result and the petitioners were selected. Petitioner no.1 was placed at Serial No.5, whereas the petitioner no.2 was placed at Serial. No.24 of the select list. Petitioner no.1 was awarded 60 marks and petitioner no.2 was awarded 51 marks. In all, 31 candidates were included in the select list. Thereafter, appointment letters were issued to the selected candidates, but no appointment letter was issued to the petitioners. The petitioners came to know that appointment letters were also issued to those candidates, who were below to the petitioners in the merit list. Thereafter, petitioners approached the respondent no.4, who informed the 2 petitioners that they could not be given appointment, as they were not seasonal workers and have worked in the department in the capacity of daily wage employees. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present writ petition for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Forest Guard in the pay scale ` 2750-70- 3800-75-4400 in the Forest Division Chakrata, Kalsi, District Dehradun. 2. The respondents have filed counter affidavit, in which they have come up with the case that the petitioners did not fall under the category of ‘Seasonal Workers’, therefore, at the time of declaration of result, a remark thereof was noted by the Selection Committee that in the matter of ‘Mustroll’ workers, further action will be taken after receiving instructions from the Chief Conservator of Forest, Human Resource Development and Personnel Management, Dehradun. The Chief Conservator of Forest, Manav Sansadhan Vikas Evam Karmik Prabandhan, Uttarakhand, Dehradun informed the respondents that Mustroll workers cannot treated as ‘Seasonal Worker’. Therefore, petitioners’ case was not considered. 3. The petitioners filed rejoinder affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to the Annexure no. RA-1 of the rejoinder affidavit, which is a copy of the statement of the payment made to the petitioner no.1 from March, 2004 to June, 2011 which shows that he was getting wages on month to month basis even for Sunday and holidays. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the only difference between Seasonal Worker and Daily Wager is that the Seasonal Worker is paid salary on month to month basis and the Daily Wage Worker is given salary only for the days he has worked and no payment is made to him for Sunday and for holidays. He submitted that in the present case, though petitioners were working on the daily wage basis, but they were paid wages for all days including holidays. Nature of work is also same. He further submitted that apart from this, the respondents have also given appointment to the post of Forest Guard to such persons, who were working on daily wage basis. The list of such employees is annexed as Annexure no. –RA-2 annexed with the rejoinder affidavit in which three persons, namely, Naveen Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Data Ram, who have been working as Mustroll employees in Forest Department were given appointment as Forest Guard. 4. Learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioners were working on daily wage basis and they were not treated as Seasonal Workers, they were not considered for appointment to the post of Forest Guard. He further submitted that in case appointment was wrongly given to some other employees, the petitioners cannot seek parity and their claim should not be accepted on this ground. 5. I have heard the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. It is true that petitioners have also worked in same manner in the department in 4 which seasonal workers worked and were also paid wages for the whole month. Nature of work is also same. But, for the purpose of considering the claim of the petitioners for grant of relief, this Court is not considering the issue whether daily wage workers should be treated as seasonal workers. The Court is considering the issue, whether in pursuance of the same advertisement, some persons working on daily wage basis can be offered appointment and at the same time, appointment to similarly situated persons be denied. In my view, this cannot be done. The action of the respondents in refusing appointment to the petitioners, on the ground that they are Mustroll employees (daily wage employees), is discriminatory and illegal. The respondents cannot be permitted to take different stand for similarly situated candidates. 6. In view of above discussion, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners on the post of Forest Guard in the pay scale of ` 2750-70-3800-75-4400 in the Forest Division Chakrata, Kalsi, District Dehradun in pursuance of advertisement dated 14.07.2008 within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. (V.K. Bist, J.) Arpan 28.11.2011