IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No.25 of 2007 State of Uttarakhand and others ………..Appellants Versus Uttarakhand Government Degree Colleges and others ….Respondents Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, Addl. Advocate General for the State/appellants. None appears on behalf of the respondents. Dated: 19th July, 2011 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) In the Writ Petition respondents sought grant of pay scale to the Stenographers of Degree/Post Graduate Colleges in the pay scale of ` 1400-2600/ ` 1640-2900, as recommended by the Director of Higher Education, Uttarakhand, Haldwani. By the judgment and order under appeal, a mandamus has been issued directing grant of such pay scale. In the writ petition, it was contented that a decision was taken that the Stenographers shall be entitled to five different pay scales, on the basis of pay scale of the Officers, to whom they shall remain attached. It was contended that the same was not implemented, in so far as Stenographers, who were working in Degree/Post Graduate Colleges. It was stated that Director of Higher Education, Uttarakhand, Haldwani made a recommendation on 24th January, 2002 for giving the pay scale of ` 1400-2600 to Stenographers, when the 2 pay scale of the Principal of the College is ` 3700-5700 and pay scale of ` 1640-2900 to the Stenographers, when the pay scale of the Principal of the Post Graduate College is ` 4500-7300. It was contended that the same was in consonance with the decision taken by the State of Uttar Pradesh, prior to the creation of the State of Uttarakhand. It was contended that there was no just reason for not giving such pay scale to the respondents, who represented such Stenographers. Nowhere in the body of the petition, it was stated that the recommendation of the Director, Higher Education, has been accepted by the State Government and, at the same time, nowhere in the body of the petition it was contended that from the appointment letters of Stenographers of the Degree/Post Graduate Colleges, it would be evidenced that they were engaged for being attached to the Principals of the Colleges. That being the situation, at the best on the writ petition, the Court could ask the State Government to ponder over the recommendation, so made by the Director of Higher Education. No case for issuance of a mandamus, was made out in the writ petition. It was contented in the writ petition that the decision to give pay scales, on the basis of the pay scale of the Officers, to whom Stenographers are attached, was necessitated from the fact that there is no scope of promotion of Stenographers. It was contended that on 26th August, 2005, the State of Uttar Pradesh made staffing pattern and thereby provided promotional avenues of Stenographers. The judgment and order under appeal, while duly took notice of the said decision of the State of Uttar Pradesh, but according to us, failed to ascertain the purport thereof. By reason of the said decision of the State of Uttar Pradesh, Stenographers working in the State of Uttar Pradesh, became entitled to promotions in view of the staffing pattern thus provided. 2. We, accordingly, feel that the judgment and order under appeal is not sustainable. In the circumstances, however, we would have had issued a direction upon the State to consider the recommendations made by the Director of Higher Education, Uttarakhand, but we will not issue such direction in view of the decision taken by the State of Uttarakhand on 29th June, 2006 whereby staffing pattern has been provided, and in terms thereof, Stenographers are entitled to be promoted to higher scales and accordingly, the reason for fixing a pay scale commensurate with the pay scale of the Officer, to whom a Stenographer is to be attached, has lost its ground. We, accordingly, allow the appeal set aside the judgment and order under appeal and dismiss the writ petition. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 19.07.2011 19.07.2011 Arpan