COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 3009/2001 Harish Chandra Tiwari & Others …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal Through Principal Secretary, Dairy Development, And Others …….Respondents Sri Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate with Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Sri V.K. Bist, learned Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sangeeta Miyan, learned Counsel for the respondents. 15th July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 30.4.2001, 24.5.2001 and 11.6.2001. By the order dated 30.4.2001, the salary of the petitioners was reduced to consolidated pay only instead of paying them in the prescribed pay scales. By the order dated 11.6.2001, it was provided that the petitioners can be reverted to their parent department if the department of Mahila Dariy Vikas Pariyojna so decides or if their parent department seeks them back or if the petitioners themselves desire to go back, whichever is earlier. 2. Facts, in brief, are that the Government of Uttar Pradesh launched a scheme known as Mahila Dairy Pariyojna in 1991. Thereafter State Government launched a separate and independent scheme known as 2 Mahila Dairy Vikas Pariyojna, Uttaranchal for the hill districts in the year 1993. The purpose of this project was to give opportunity to women of hill area for their all round development. Vide circular dated 5.4.1994, Annexure 12 to the writ petition, applications were invited from the staffers who were already working in the Mahila Dairy Pariyojna to join the Mahila Dairy Vikas Pariyojna, Uttaranchal. The petitioners, who were already working in Mahila Dairy Pariyojna, submitted their options to work in the Mahila Dairy Vikas Pariyojna, Uttaranchal. The appointments on various posts in the Mahila Dairy Pariyojna were made on contract basis to last up to the end of the year. These appointments were being renewed from year to year without any break ever since 1993. The petitioners were also allowed annual increments and other service benefits in the same manner as were payable to any regular employee. 3. After giving the option to work in Mahila Dairy Vikas Pariyojna, Uttaranchal, petitioners were relieved from Mahila Diary Pariyojna and joined the Mahila Dairy Vikas Pariyojna in the year 1994 either on the same post or on the next higher post. After their joining, petitioners were getting their salary in the prescribed pay scales. Pay scales of the petitioners were also revised w.e.f. 1.1.1996. But subsequently vide the impugned order dated 30.4.2001, the salary of the petitioners was reduced to consolidated pay w.e.f. 1.5.2001. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to an office memorandum dated 5.9.1997 issued by the Government wherein it has been provided, inter alia, that those employees who joined the Mahila 3 Dairy Vikas Pariyojna, Uttaranchal from Mahila Dairy Pariyojna shall work on the same pay, dearness allowance, bonus, leave encashment, maternity leave, etc. which they were getting in Mahila Dairy Pariyojna before joining the Mahila Dairy Vikas Pariyojna, Uttaranchal and that they shall not be reverted to their parent department unless Mahila Dairy Vikas Pariyojna and the concerned employee, both agree for that. Copy of the office memorandum dated 5.9.1997 has been filed as Annexure No. 15 to the writ petition. 5. It has been stated by the respondents in para 11 of the counter affidavit that there are about 140 employees working in Mahila Dairy, most of them on contract basis and on consolidated salary, whereas petitioners were getting the prescribed pay scales. Therefore, there was resentment among those employees, who demanded that either pay scales should be granted to them or others who were getting the prescribed pay scales should also be given consolidated salary. Therefore, petitioners’ salary has been reduced to consolidated pay only. 6. Petitioners have also pleaded discrimination among the similarly situated employees. Vide order dated 24.5.2001, period of contract in respect of the petitioners was shown to be extended only up to 30.4.2001, whereas in the order dated 30.4.2001, their term had already been extended up to 31.3.2002. Petitioners were appointed on identical terms on which they were working in their parent department, but subsequently vide order dated 30.4.2001, salary of the petitioners was reduced to consolidated pay and the same is in violation of aforesaid office memorandum dated 5.9.1997. No prior opportunity 4 of hearing was afforded to the petitioners before passing the impugned orders. Therefore, impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, writ petition succeeds. All the aforementioned impugned orders are set aside. Petitioners shall be deemed to have been duly appointed and they shall be allowed to draw their salary in the prescribed pay scale with other consequential benefits, which are legally admissible to them. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 15.7.2008 Prabodh