High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 10 UK CK 0317

Pankaj Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors.

Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital · Decided on 6 October 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pankaj Purohit, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition Service Single No. 2554 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 368 words

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a mandamus to the respondents to give the minimum pay scale to the petitioner as is being paid by the respondents to those contractual Data Entry Operators who were placed through outsourcing in the department on the basis of “equal pay for equal work”, as the work of Computer Operator is equivalent and similar to the Junior Assistant-cum-Data Entry Operator.

2.

It is contended by the petitioner that petitioner is working with the respondents’ department as Computer Operator since 2011. Petitioner is being paid Rs.24,000/- per month by the respondents’ department as a consolidated salary. It is further contended by him that the contractual Data Entry Operators engaged by the department through outsourcing from UPNL are being paid remuneration on the basis of the Government Orders dated 03.02.2026 and 01.07.2026, whereby, the minimum pay scale of the Data Entry Operator is being paid to them. Petitioner further submits that he is discharging the same duties as are being discharged by the Data Entry Operators engaged through UPNL, therefore, parity in the pay scale is to be given to them on the basis of “equal pay for equal work”.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for redressal of the aforesaid grievance, petitioner has submitted a representation dated 23.09.2026 (annexure-5 to the writ petition) to the Head of the Department, i.e. Engineer-in-Chief. The said representation is still undecided.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ends of justice would be met, if a direction is issued to the Engineer-in-Chief to decide the said representation within stipulated time.

5.

Learned State Counsel has no objection if such a direction is issued to the Engineer-in-Chief/Head of the Department, Dehradun, to decide the representation within the stipulated time.

6.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of finally. It is provided that respondent no.2-Engineer-in-Chief/Head of the Department, Public Works Department, Dehradun, shall decide the representation of the petitioners dated 23.09.2026 (annexure-5 to the writ petition) within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law.

7.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.