HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting) (Chapter VIII Rule 32(2)(b) Description of the case. W.P. No. 388 (S/S) Year 2004 Vijay Kumar Versus State and others. Approved for reporting Not approved for reporting . Date of decision 27.04.2004 Initial of Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Civil Writ Petition No. 388 of 2004 (S/S) Vijay Kumar ………………… Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal ………………… Respondents and others Ms. Jyotsana, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Nand Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Hon. Rajesh Tandon, J. By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide the benefits of one month extra pay to the petitioner as provided in the Government Order dated 7th December 1979. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition according to the petitioner are that he is an inspector of Police and is presently posted as Station House Officer, Kotwali Jawalapur, District Haridwar. During the period 17.07.1997 to 18.07.2002 the petitioner was posted as Inspector in Anti Corruption Organization, C.B.C.I.D., Haldwani, Nainital as non gazetted police officer and was being treated to be on duty for all the time and he did not avail the holidays of Second Saturdays and Sundays and any other gazetted holidays. Petitioner has submitted that being aggrieved on account of inaction of the respondents by non discharging their duties by no paying on e month extra pay, special pay allowances, special pay, fixed house rent allowance and motor subsidy form the period 17.07.1997 to 18.07.2002 he has filed the present writ petition. The petitioner has relied upon the Government Order issued on 7th December 1979 in which it has been provided that one month extra pay in lieu of gazetted holidays, second Saturdays and Sundays which are not availed by the non gazetted members of the U.P. Police force of the rant of Inspector rand Sub Inspector including the Platoon Commander and the Company Commander of the P.A.C. shall be allowed to him. The said Government Order is quoted below:- ‘kk0 vk0 la0& 7793@vkB&1&3@1979 x`0 i`0 vk0&1 fnukad 7 fnlEcj 1979 fo”k;% iqfyl foHkkx ds vjktif=r vf/kdkfj;ksa o deZpkfj;ksa dks jktif=r vodk’k] jfookj o f}rh; ‘kfuokj dk miHkkx u ikus ds ,ot] o”kZ esa ekuns; dh Lohd`frA mijksDr fo”k; ij vkids i= la0 3 d&400&79] fnukad 17&9&79 ds lUnHkZ esa ;g fuosnu djus dk funsZ’k gqvk gS fd jkT;iky egksn; m0iz0 iqfyl laxBu esa fu;qDr leLr dkULVscy o gsM dkULVscy] Qk;j lfoZl esa fu;qDr led{k deZpkfj;ksa dks lfEefyr djrs gq, rFkk tuinh; ‘kk[kk ¼th0 vkj0 ih0 lfgr½ esa fu;qDr ukxfjd o l’kL= iqfyl ds lgk;d mi fujh{kdksa] mi fujh{kdksa rFkk fujh{kdksa ftuesa ih0 ,0 lh0 ds IykVwu dekaMj o daiuh dekaMj Hkh lfEefyr gSa ftuds dk;kZy; ekg ds f}rh; ‘kfuokj] jfookj o jktif=r vodk’k esa lk/kkj.kr;k [kqys jgrs gSa] dks mudh dfBu lsokvksa dks n `f”Vxr j[krs gq, izR;sd foRrh; o”kZ esa ,d ekg ds osru ds cjkcj ekuns; fn;s tkus dh Lohd`r iznku djrs gSaA 2& iqfyl foHkkx dh mijksDr ‘kk[kkvksa ds vfrfjDr vU; ‘kk[kkvksa esa fu;qDr lgk;d mi&fujh{kdksa] mifujh{kdksa o fujh{kdksa tks ,sls laxBu esa fu;qDr gSa ftuds dk;kZy; lkekU; rFkk f}rh; ‘kfuokj] jfookj ,oa jktif=r vodk’kksa esa cUn ugha gksrs gSa] ds ckjs esa iwjh lwpuk vki ds }kjk miyC/k djkus ds i’pkr~ mudk ijh{k.k dj vyx ls vkns’k tkjh fd;s tk;saxsA 3& mijksDr lqfo/kk mUgha vf/kdkjh o deZpkfj;ksa dks ns; gksxh ftUgksus ,d o”kZ dh vgZdkjh lsok iwjh dj yh gksxhA ,d o”kZ esa ekuns; dk vx.ku 1 vizSy ls vxkeh 31 ekpZ rd ds ewy osru] eagxkbZ HkRrk rFkk vfrfjDr egaxkbZ HkRrs ds vkSlr ij fd;k tk;sxk vkSj tks deZpkjh izR;sd foRrh; o”kZ dh izkjfEHkd frfFk 1 vizSy ,oa vfUre ekg ekpZ dh igyh rkjh[k dks lsokjr gSa] mUgsa 12 ekg dh lsok ds vk/kkj ij ekg ekpZ esa Hkqxrku fd;k tk;sxkA 1 o”kZ ds e/; lsok eqDr gksus okys ekpZ vf/kdkfj;ksa o deZpkfj;ksa dks lekuqikfrd njksa ij ;g lqfo/kk ns; gksxhA bl izdkj tks vf/kdkjh o”kZ ds nkSjku fdlh le; lsok vkjEHk djrs gSa mUgsa gh ;g Hkqxrku lsok vof/k dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, lekuqikfrd nj ij fd;k tk;sxkA pkyw foRrh; o”kZ esa tks deZpkjh 31 ekpZ 1970 dks viuh 1 o”kZ dh lsok iw.kZ dj jgs gSa vkSj 1 vizSy 1979 ls dk;Zjr gS] mUgsa ,d ekg ds osru ds cjkcj mijksDrkuqlkj ekuns; vuqeU; gksxk rFkk tks o”kZ ds chp esa lsok fuo`Rr gks x;s gSa vFkok ftUgksaus 1 vizSy 1970 ds ckn lsok vkjaHk dh gS] dks lekuqikfrd nj ij ekuns; dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk;sxkA Petitioner has referred the certificate dated 6th April 2004 issued by the Khandadhikari, Criminal Investigation Department, Haldwani, Nainital wherein it was mentioned that the petitioenr has not availed the benefits as admissible under the said Government Order. On the other hand, Mr. Nand Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner has availed second Saturdays and Sundays and therefore he is not entitled for the benefit of the Government Order dated 7th December 1979. The petitioner has also referred the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court dated 4th April 2001 were the learned Judge after relying upon the judgment in writ petition No. 6700 (S/S) of 1986 (K.K. Mishra and others Vs State of U.P. and others) made the following directions:- “In view of the above this Court is of the opinion that the judgment and order passed in writ petition No. 6700 (S/S) of 1986 is fully applicable in the instant matter. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the opposite parties to provide the benefits of one month’s extra pay to the petitioners as provided in the Government Order dated 07.12.1979, copy of which is contained in annexure No. 1 to the writ petition and the benefit of judgment and order, passed by this Court in writ petition No. 6700 (S/S) of 1986, be also given to the petitioners by the respondents. There will be no order as to costs.” In writ petition No. 6700 (S/S) of 1986 it has been held as under: “The main question which arises for consideration is that who would be the better judge to decide these questions. The highest police officials from the stage of the Deputy Inspector General of Police to Inspector General of Police have indicated certain facts from which it transpires that they perform similar duties. They are governed by the same Act and Regulation. In the matter of discipline they are governed by the same disciplinary regulations when the options were taken form them they were assured that they would be treated equally with the persons of the police staff and paid equal allowances etc. There is no reason as to why after they opted for new cadre on the basis of certain assurances and promises they should be denied the amenities and facilities which are available to their counterparts working on executive side. There is no reason for this Court to discredit what the highest police officials of the State had stated. Some of the persons had made representations. The decision on the representation also does not indicate as to what is their dis-familiarity in the cadre of ministerial staff, for which the facilities and amenities granted to the executive staff can be denied to them. This case cannot escape the sweep of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India which abhor discrimination of any sort whether it is in the matter of pay scale, special pay or allowance and the like nature. Although the petitioners claim that they should be given parity in the mate of aforesaid allowances form the date, the persons working on executive side of the police officers are entitled to but for the reason that it would cost great strain on the public exchequer and after considering financial strains which the State of U.P. is having today, the order of this Court would be prospective in operation. In view of what has been indicated hereinabove the writ petition succeeds. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 8.5.85 contained in annexure -19 to the writ petition. A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to grant special work allowance, special pay, fixed house rent allowance, motor subsidy and one month’s extra pay to the petitioners who are working in the ministerial cadre of U.P. Police Force in the Intelligence Department at par with the equivalent category of officers / officials belonging to the Executive Cadre working in the Intelligence Department with effect from today is also issued.” The controversy, therefore, with regard to the extra payment in pursuance of the Government Order of 1979 has not been disputed by the learned Standing Counsel. Liberty is given to the petitioner to made a proper representation before the respondent Authorities. The said Authorities shall decide the claim of the petitioner with regard to benefit of one month extra pay to the petitioenr in accordance with the G.O. date 7th December 1979 and in accordance with the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in similar writ petition No. 6700 (S/S) of 1986. The respondents shall release the payment to the petitioner in accordance with the said G.O. and similar writ petition of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court. The claim of the petitioner base don his representation shall be released within a period of six weeks form the date of production of the certified copy of this Order. Subject to the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. The connected writ petition No. 544 (S/S) of 2001 may be listed in date course. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) Dt. 27.04.2004 HN