IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 55 (S/B) of 2004 Tilak Raj Verma. …..…Petitioner. Versus Public Service Tribunal and others. …...…Respondents. None appears for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/ respondents. connected with Writ Petition No. 588 (S/B) of 2003 Vinod Kumar Sharma and another. …..…Petitioners. Versus Public Service Tribunal and others. …...…Respondents. Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate present for the petitioners. Mr. Vinay Kumar Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/ respondents. with Writ Petition No. 50 (S/B) of 2004 State of Uttaranchal and others. …..…Petitioners. Versus Umesh Chandra Dimri and another. …...…Respondents. Mr. Vinay Kumar Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/ petitioners. Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for respondent no. 1. with Writ Petition No. 52 (S/B) of 2004 Umesh Chandra Dimri. …..…Petitioner. Versus Public Service Tribunal and others. …...…Respondents. Mr. M.C Pant, Advocate present for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/ respondents. 2 Judgment Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, CJ. Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) Before 01.01.1986 the pay scale of Electrician and the pay scale of Jeep Driver, Truck Driver etc. was ` 330 – 495. With effect from 01.01.1986 the same was increased to ` 825 – 1200. On 08.12.1989 it was decided that persons listed against item nos. 46, 47, 48 & 53 in the order of the Government dated 08.12.1989 directing revision of pay scale with effect from 01.01.1986 shall be entitled to the pay scale of ` 950 – 1500 instead of ` 825 – 1200. While, however, passing the said order, it was mentioned that pay scale of ` 825 – 1200 will also be available to all those who were in the equivalent posts. The persons listed against item nos. 46, 47, 48 & 53 were Roller Driver, Jeep Driver, Truck Driver and Tractor/ Tanker Driver. There cannot be any dispute that an Electrician cannot be equivalent to them. However, in the matter of pay scale, Electrician as well as Roller Driver, Jeep Driver, Truck Driver and Tractor Driver, immediately prior to 01.01.1986, were the same. Order dated 08.12.1989 did not indicate why Roller Driver, Jeep Driver, Truck Driver and Tractor Driver, who were entitled to same pay scale as that of Electrician, will get a better pay scale from 01.01.1986. Then again while increasing the pay scale of Roller Driver, Jeep Driver, Truck Driver and Tractor Driver, in the said letter dated 08.12.1989, it was held out that 3 similar higher pay scale would be available to similar people, who are equivalent to Roller Driver, Jeep Driver, Truck Driver and Tractor Driver. The matter was put to rest by a clarification issued by the Government on 08.11.1993, where it was held out that, amongst others, Electricians are also equivalent. Subsequently, it was purported to be held out in the order dated 16.03.1998 that Electricians are not equivalent. No reason, however, in support thereof was furnished. While Roller Driver, Jeep Driver, Truck Driver and Tractor Driver were equivalent to Electrician immediately before 01.01.1986 in the matter of pay scale, how they could become unequal with effect from 01.01.1986 had not attempted to be explained either in the orders referred to above or in the objection filed before the Tribunal or in the counter affidavit filed to the present writ petition. Petitioners approached the Tribunal to obtain a declaration that equality of the petitioners, who are Electricians, with Roller Driver, Jeep Driver, Truck Driver and Tractor Driver, which existed since prior 01.01.1986, could not be ignored suddenly without any reason. The Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that petitioners were equivalent to Roller Driver, Jeep Driver, Truck Driver and Tractor Driver all through out and even prior to 1986 and were treated so until the said order dated 16.03.1998 was passed without giving any reason in support thereof. 4 We accordingly allow writ petition no. 55 (SB) of 2004, writ petition no. 588 (SB) of 2003 and writ petition no. 52 (SB) of 2004 and set aside the judgment and order of Tribunal and quash the order dated 16.03.1998. Writ petition no. 50 (SB) of 2004 is dismissed. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 26.11.2010 SKS