THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 698 of 2010. Narayan Singh aged about 44 years, S/O late M.Singh … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.C.Tiwari, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 4. Date August 26, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Interim Relief Application No. 6811 of 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:- 1. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the petitioner the wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of the employees of their cadre of Class IV post. 2. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of ad interim mandamus restraining the respondents to pay the petitioner the daily wages at the rate of Rs. 70/- and commanding them to pay wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre of Class IV post during the pendency of the writ petition. 3. Cost of petition may be awarded in favour of petitioner. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as daily wager in the Estate Department of the erstwhile State of U.P. on 9-1- 1990 and as he was relieved to join his duties at Nainital Club on 11th April 1991, he was entitled for benefit of the Government Order dated 23-12-2003 by which the daily wages were increased to Rs. 57/- per day. 2 The petitioner had filed a writ petition being WPSS No. 1153 of 2005 for the aforesaid relief of increased daily wages of Rs. 57/- and to direct the respondents to pay the minimum pay scale to the petitioner and to regularise his services. By an interim order dated 19- 5-2006, the respondents were directed to pay to the petitioner the minimum pay scale of Rs. 2550/- and consequently an order was passed on 4-8-2006 thereby the petitioner was granted the said pay scale. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 5-12- 2006. According to the petitioner, similar writ petitions were filed before this Court by the daily wagers working with the respondent no. 3-Senior Management Officer, State Guest House, Nainital. In writ petition bearing WPSS No. 537 of 2006 filed by Mahesh Ram and others, this Court vide order dated 19-4-2006 directed the respondents to pay the minimum pay scale to the petitioner. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is similar to the controversy involved in W.P.S.S. No. 902 of 2007 Pramod Bhagat and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and two others and the case at hand is squarely covered by the order dated 10- 8-2010 passed by this Court in the said writ petition. The Apex Court in para no. 55 of the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi(3) and others, reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases, Page 1 = AIR, 2006, Supreme Court, Page 1806, has observed as under:- “55. In cases relating to service in the Commercial Taxes Department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on daily wages, be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. The objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly gone wrong in directing that these employees be paid salary equal to 3 the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government services, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively engaged or appointed. It was not open to the High Court to impose such an obligation on the State when the very question before the High Court in the case was whether these employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal work so called and were entitled to any other benefit. They had also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so. We are, therefore, of the view that, at best, the Division Bench of the High Court should have directed that wages equal to the salary that is being paid to regular employees be paid to these daily-wages employees with effect from the date of its judgment. Hence, that part of the direction of the Division Bench is modified and it is directed that these daily-wage earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department in government service, from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. Since, they are only daily-wage earners, there would be no question of other allowances being paid to them. In view of our conclusion, that the courts are not expected to issue directions for making such persons permanent in service, we set aside that part of the direction of the High Court directing the Government to consider their cases for regularization. We also notice that the High Court has not adverted to the aspect as to whether it was regularization or it was given permanency that was being directed by the High Court. In such a situation, the direction in that regard will stand deleted and the appeals filed by the State would stand allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to be vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling those posts by a regular process of selection. But when regular recruitment is undertaken, the respondents in CAs Nos. 3595-612 and those in the Commercial Taxes Department similarly situated, will be allowed to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for work in the Department for a significant period of time. That would be the extent of the exercise of 4 power by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to do justice to them.” In the case at hand, the relief sought by the petitioner is only for grant of salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre of Class IV post and not for regularization. In view of the Apex Court verdict in paragraph no. 55 of the case of Uma Devi (supra) the respondents are directed to pay salary to the petitioner at the minimum pay scale at the lowest grade. It is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for any other allowance being paid to him. With the said direction, the writ petition is allowed. Costs easy. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP