IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (SB) No. 66 of 2008 Inam Ali ….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents. Mr. S.K. Shandilya, Advocate for the petitioner (earlier Mr. B.S. Khanka (since deceased), Advocate was representing the petitioner). Mr. P.C. Bisht, Advocate for the respondents.. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioner before this Court was appointed as a Principal of “Rajkiya Ashram Paddhati Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidhyalaya”, Ambari, Dehradun vide Government Notification No. 3485 dated 20.8.1998. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner joined the post of Principal in the said Department on 30.10.1998 in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500, which has presently been increased to Rs. 7500-12500. The case of the petitioner is that the department in which the petitioner works is run by “Jan Jati Vikas Department”, which is a wing of a Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Uttarakhand and the salary and status of a Principal of the said department is equivalent to that of a principal of the Education Department in the State. According to the petitioner, the Government of U.P. vide its order dated 3.09.2001 has fixed the pay scale of the Education Department Teacher/Principal w.e.f. 1.7.2001, as determined by the Fifth Pay Commission and the Uttarakhand Government has also followed the said order of the Government of U.P. and has also given the same pay and status and other benefits to its 2 teachers in Government Department, as it was being given to the teachers in the State of U.P., w.e.f. 1.7.2001. The contention of the petitioner, therefore, is that since in all respects, the Principal of the “Rajkiya Ashram Paddhati Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidhyalay” has to be given the same benefit as that of a Principal of Education Department, there is no reason as to why the benefit of Fifth Pay Commission is being given to the petitioner only w.e.f. 1.12.2005 and not with effect from 1.7.2001, as is being given to his counter parts in the Education Department. This the petitioner alleges is discriminatory. The petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition bearing Writ Petition (S/B) No. 53 of 2005, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 9.5.2005 with a direction to the respondents that the pending representation of the petitioner dated 27.1.2005 may be decided in accordance with law. It is necessary to state here that the said representation of the petitioner was that he should also be given the benefit of the Fifth Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.1.1996. In compliance of the order dated 9.5.2005, the Secretary, State of Uttarakahnd passed an order on 4.1.2006, whereby the raised salary applicable to the petitioner was given to him w.e.f. 1.12.2005. Now the contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is not being given the benefit of the Fifth Pay-scale w.e.f. from 1.7.2001, as is being given to his counter parts in the Education Department. The State Government while replying to the averments made in the writ petition has clearly evaded the main contention of the petitioner as to why he is being differently treated, when in all respects, he has the same status as the Principals of an Education Department, who are getting the revised salary w.e.f. 3 1.7.2001. The State in its reply only states that the petitioner is getting the same salary but w.e.f. 1.12.2005. The fact that the petitioner is a Principal of “Rajkiya Ashram Paddhati Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidhyalay” and is entitled to the same salary and status has not been denied by the respondents. Since, this is the admitted position, there is absolutely no reason for the respondents to deny the arrears and other benefits of the fifth pay commission, as are being given to the teachers and Principal in the Education Department w.e.f. 1.7.2001, whereas the same are being given to the petitioner only w.e.f. 1.12.2005. This is clearly discriminatory and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The order dated 1.12.2005 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to give the arrears of pay scale to the petitioner from the same date as is being given to the counterparts of the petitioner in Education Department in the State of Uttarakhand i.e. w.e.f. 1st July, 2001. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J) 25.3.2010 Rathour