IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 3006 of 2001 Harveer Singh ………….Petitioner Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others ……...Respondents. Present : Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Beena Pande, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Beena Pande, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the state of Uttarakhand. 2. The petitioner is a work charged employee in the Irrigation Department presently serving in Upper Ganga Canal Modernisation Project, Roorkee. According to the petitioner, he was employed in the year 1985 and thereafter on 3.6.1989 his services were terminated. Subsequently, he raised a labour dispute and an award was given in his favour by the Labour Court holding that the termination of the services of the petitioner was illegal and improper. Thereafter the petitioner was reinstated in service in compliance of Labour Court’s award dated 23.3.1995. The services of the petitioner were again terminated by the respondents on 11.12.1995 only on the ground that they have filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad being 2 Misc. Civil Writ Petition No. 36405 of 1995 against the award of the Labour Court. The said writ petition, however, was dismissed and the petitioner was again reinstated in service. Thereafter, again on 9.12.1996 the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondents stating that they have filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court challenging the order dated 19.12.1995 of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court as well as the award of the Labour Court dated 23.3.1995. The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and thereafter the petitioner was again reinstated in service. 2. Now, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the pay scale of ` 1200 – 2040, as is being given to the similarly situated employee, namely, Vashistha Muni Misra. The petitioner contends that there are certain orders in his favour and according to him in the year 1999 an order was passed by a learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court giving certain direction to the respondents that in case the petitioners (in Writ Petition No. 40843 of 1999) are covered under the case of Vashistha Muni Mishra Vs. State, Writ Petition No. 31173 of 1995, they shall also be extended the same benefits as given to Vashistha Muni Mishra. 3. The petitioner says that his case is similar to the one of Rajesh Chandra Gupta and others v. State of U.P. and 19 others (Writ Petition No. 40843 of 1999). There is no specific denial of this particular fact by the respondents. In fact, the fact that the said order has been passed by a learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court is admitted. 3 4. Therefore this writ petition is also disposed of with the direction that in case the case of the petitioner is similar to the one of Ramesh Chandra Gupta & others v. State of U.P. & 19 others (Writ Petition No. 40843 of 1999) as well as Vashistha Muni Mishra Vs. State (Writ Petition No. 31173 of 1995), the respondents may consider the matter in the same light, as it has been done in those cases. Needful be done as expeditiously as possible but definitely within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned authority. 5. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 23.11.2011 Avneet