Court No. 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 4465 of 2001 Sakher Chandra Pandey ..... Petitioner and another. Versus Under Secretary, Village Development, Section – 1, State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and others. ...... Respondents ........... Sri Vinod Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondents. Date: May 14, 2008. Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 18.03.2000 and 07.02.2001 passed by respondent Nos. 1 & 4 respectively, by which the petitioners have been denied the benefit of protection of last salary drawn by them. 2. The petitioners were employees of U.P. State Brass Ware Corporation, Moradabad (which is a U.P. Government undertaking). Under a policy decision taken by the Government of Uttar Pradesh to shut down the U.P. State Brass Ware Corporation Limited, Moradabad retrenchment of employees started and the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were retrenched on 15.03.1994. On the date of retrenchment both the petitioners were drawing salary in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500. The basic pay of the petitioner No. 1 was Rs. 1110/- and petitioner No. 2 was Rs. 1090/- at the relevant time. The services of the petitioners were merged in the office of the District Development Officer, Almora but they are being paid lower pay scale then they were getting at the time of retrenchment. The District Development Officer, Almora sought clarification regarding fixation of pay of the petitioners. Thereafter the Government of Uttar Pradesh through letter dated 18.03.2000 informed the respondent No. 4 that the Government has taken a decision on 23.09.1999 that benefit of pay fixation in accordance with clause 6 of the Government order dated 27.05.1993 shall not be given to the petitioners and four other persons. 3. The only grievance of the petitioners is that the other employees who were also retrenched from U.P. Brass Ware Corporation, Moradabad and their services have been merged in some other Government Departments, they have been given benefit of protection of last salary drawn and their pay have been fixed on the last salary drawn by them. 4. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is provided that if the similarly situated persons are being given benefit of protection of last salary drawn by them at the time of retrenchment, the petitioners shall also be given the same benefit. 5. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of finally. (P.C. Verma, J.) 14.05.2008 P.Singh