COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 988/2003 Om Prakash & Others …….Petitioners Versus Nagar Palika Parishad, Tehri Through its Chairman & Others …….Respondents Sri V.B.S. Negi, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Sri N.S. Pundir, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1 & 2. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 3. 8th May, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners are claiming regular salary of the post of Clerk from the date of regularization of their services on the post of Clerk. 2. Initially this writ petition was filed on behalf of five petitioners. But subsequently petitioner no. 5 Virendra Singh did not press the writ petition and petition against him was allowed to be withdrawn vide order dated 19.3.2008. 3. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioners were appointed as Clerk on daily wages in the year 1996 in Nagar Palika Parishad, New Tehri and since then they are continuously working on the said post. The services of the petitioners were regularized on various dates in the year 2001 and copies of their regularization orders have also been filed on the record. Petitioners are continuously 2 working on the post of Clerk but they are not being paid the salary of the said post. Petitioners also claim that juniors to them, viz., Dinesh Kumar, Rajendra Sajwan, Rajendra Rawat and Gambhir Singh Kandwar are getting their regular salary but the case of the petitioners has been ignored. Petitioners unsuccessfully requested several times to the concerned authorities to pay the regular salary as is being paid to their juniors. 4. In the counter affidavit, it has not been disputed that the services of the petitioners were regularized on the post of Clerk. But the main ground on which this writ petition has been contested is that the petitioners were regularized against the posts which were not sanctioned. Petitioners have also pleaded discrimination among the similarly situated employees, which is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, the writ petition is finally disposed of with direction to the respondents that the petitioners shall be paid the salary of the post of Clerk from the date of their regularization on said post, if any similarly situated junior to the petitioners is being paid the regular salary of the post of Clerk. There shall be no order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 08.5.2008 Prabodh