IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Writ Petition No. 3200 (S/S) of 2001 (1) Khushal Singh Bisht, A.S.I. (M), S/o Sri Pratap Singh, R/o Office of Superintendent of Police, Tehri Garhwal. (2) Balwan Singh Bisht, A.S.I. (M) S/o Udoa Singh (3) Prem Singh Negi, A.S.I. (M) S/o Jodh Singh (4) Bhashkar Dobhal A.S.I. (M) S/o Mohan Lal Dobhal (5) Harish Sharma A.S.I (M) S/o Lalita Sharma (6) Narendra Singh Constable (M) S/o Sri Bachan Singh (7) Heera Singh Cost. (M) S/o Barham Singh (8) Bhashkar Sanwal A.S.I. (M) S/o Mathura Datt (9) Surendra Singh Rautella A.S.I (M) S/o Deepak Singh (All are presently working in the office of Superintendent of Police, Tehri Garhwal) …………Petitioners. Versus (1) The State of Uttaranchal through the Secretary Home Department, Government of Uttaranchal, Dehradun. (2) The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Uttaranchal, Dehradun. (3) The Director General and Inspector General of Police, U.P. Lucknow. …………………..Respondents. Sri B.S Khanka, learned counsel for the Petitioners. Sri.N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay one month’s extra pay from the year of their joining. Also motor cycle allowance is prayed to be paid to the petitioners like their counter parts, working in the field. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. (3) Briefly speaking, the petitioners’ case is that they are working as Assistant Sub Inspectors (Ministerial) in the office of the police Superintendent, Tehri Garhwal. Their services are governed under the Police Act, 1861 and the Police Regulations framed thereunder. Ministerial staff of police Department was brought under Police Act vide U.P Government Order No.7252/VIII-A-94-56, dated September 6, 1966 issued by Home Department (Police-A). Vide D.O No. III/4-174-66, dated September 17,1966, the then Deputy Inspector General of Police, on behalf of the Police Headquarters of the State, clarified that ministerial staff of Police Department would be part and parcel of police force and would be entitled to appropriate police rank and the benefits given to the other members of the Police force. Some policemen, not belonging to the cadre working in the field i.e. executive cadre, complaining discrimination in not being paid the same allowances and benefits as are given to the field staff of the Police (executive cadre) filed a Writ Petition No. 6700 of 1986 (K.K Mishra and others Vs. State of U.P and others) which was decided by the Allahabad High Court on 23.09.1991.By said order Allahabad High Court issued following directions in its concluding para 13 which is being reproduced below- “A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to grant special work allowance, special pay, fixed house rent allowance, motor subsidy and one months extra pay to the petitioners who are working in the ministerial cadre of the U.P. Police force in Intelligence Department at Par with the equivalent category of officers/office is balancing to the executive cadre working in the executive departments w.e.f. today, is also issued.” It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the State Government filed special leave petition before the Supreme Court bearing No. 3293/92 (CC 16209) against the aforesaid judgment passed by Allahabad high Court however the same was dismissed vide order dated 07.10.1992. The petitioners have further contended that the denial of allowance and benefits provided to the policemen of the executive cadre of police force is arbitrary and discriminatory and volatile of article 14 of the constitution of India. In support of their case petitioners have also relied in the government Order No. 2299/39(4)-40(261)/85 ,dated 1st October 1985, whereby washing allowance and holiday allowance to the non gazetted employees of vigilance establishment was given by the State Government. Lastly it is submitted that in Writ Petition No. 141 of 2000 (S/S) (Vijay Parakash Srivastava & others Vs. State & others), Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court vide its judgment and order dated 13.01.2000, directed the State Government to pay one month’s extra salary to the ministerial staff of the police force. Before that, it appears that vide Order No. 189/18-8-99, dated 24th March 2000 headquarters of the U.P. Police directed that Radheyshyam Yadav, Anwar Alam, Narendra Swaroop Sharma, Usha Singh, Jahiruddin, Mohd. Wasim, Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Jay Prakash Singh (all belonging to ministerial branch) were directed to be paid one month’s extra salary in compliance of the judgment passed in K.K Mishra’s case in Writ petition No. 6700 of 1986. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners are being discriminated and not being paid the benefits even after their some of the colleagues who were petitioners in the writ petition moved by them before the Allahabad High Court were given the same. (4) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that the service conditions of the administrative staff of the police department and those working in the field are different. As such the petitioners are not entitled to the benefits claimed by them. It is further stated that “unequals can not be treated as equals.” (5) The stand taken by the respondents is strange and unacceptable. It is pertinent to quote the observations/directions made by the Apex Court in the similar controversy arising out of Writ Petition No. 4810 of 1999 in its judgment and order dated 17.1.2007, passed in Civil Appeal No. 1926-1928 of 2004, State of U.P Vs. P.P Mishra & others- “In view of series of decisions which have been challenged before the Division Bench and before this Court, the ratio laid down in K.K Mishra (supra) has been affirmed by this Court by dismissing the special leave petition. Nothing remained to be decided in this matter as special leave petition has been dismissed by this Court and order passed in this case of K.K Mishra, has been subsequently followed by learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. Therefore, now it has come to stay that ministerial staff working in Police shall also be entitled to same benefits as police personnel are getting i.e. one month extra pay in every financial year. Accordingly, these appeals and special leave petition are dismissed. No order as to costs.” Proceedings relating to the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 4810/1999, were covered under Section 90 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000, and State of Uttarakhand is also bound by the judgment of the Allahabad High Court Upheld by the apex court. (6) In view of the observations of the Supreme Court quoted above and for the reasons as discussed above, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that the petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of and shall be paid one month extra pay for every financial year from the year similarly situated persons in Uttar Pradesh are paid or the year of their joining service whichever is later. (Prafulla C.Pant,J) Dt.03.03.2008 NS