State of Uttarakhand & Ors. vs Mahendra Singh & Ors.

(Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.)

State has filed this writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 21.4.202521.4.2025, passed by Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 153/NB/DB of 2023. By the said judgment, claim staked by the private respondents for Grade Pay of ₹2400 was allowed.

Private respondents were appointed as Electrician in Higher Education Department. Pay scale admissible to Electricians serving in Public Works Department and Irrigation Department of the State was upgraded from ₹5200-20,200 with Grade Pay ₹1900 to ₹5200-20,200 with Grade Pay₹2400, vide Government Order dated 1.2.2016. Electricians serving in Higher Education Department, however, were denied benefit of similar pay upgradation. Thus feeling aggrieved, private respondents approached Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal contending that the persons serving as Electrician in Higher Education Department and Public Works Department were drawing salary in the same pay scale; their duties and responsibilities were the same and that the academic qualifications prescribed for appointment as Electrician in respective departments were also exactly the same, therefore the Electricians serving in Higher Education Department could not have been subjected to such discrimination.

Learned Tribunal found favour with the contention raised on behalf of private respondents and allowed their claim petition by setting aside the orders dated 25.4.2023 and 3.6.2023, whereby the representations made by the private respondents, staking pay parity with Electricians serving in Public Works Department, were rejected. Learned Tribunal directed the competent authority to approve the same cadre structure and Grade Pay for the private respondents serving in Higher Education Department, as was done for the Electricians serving in Public Works Department, Irrigation Department and Peyjal Nigam.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that for appointment as Electrician in engineering departments of the State, one is required to possess five years’ experience, while there is no such requirement of having experience for appointment to said post in Higher Education Department. It is further contended that the post of Electrician in Higher Education Department has been declared a dying cadre, therefore the persons serving as Electrician in that department cannot claim pay parity with the persons serving as Electrician in Public Works Department. It is also contended that since the private respondents are serving as Electrician in Higher Education Department, therefore, their pay would be governed as per the UGC pay scales.

We are not impressed by the contentions raised on behalf of petitioners. Merely because recruitment rules for the post of Electrician in the Public Works Department prescribe for additional requirement of experience does not, by itself, justify the grant of higher Grade Pay to the persons who are appointed as Electrician in that department, particularly when the nature of duties and responsibilities are same in the Higher Education Department as well as Public Works Department.

Secondly, the explanation offered by learned State Counsel that since the post of Electrician has been declared a dying cadre in Higher Education Department, therefore, Electricians serving in that department cannot claim pay parity with Public Works Department and Irrigation Department does not hold any substance, as the personnel who are still holding the position of Electrician in the Higher Education Department are entitled to pay parity with the Electricians serving elsewhere. Declaration of a post as a dying cadre means that no fresh recruitment shall be made against that post and the existing posts shall be phased out gradually with superannuation, death and resignation of the existing employees. Such a declaration, by itself, does not justify denying the existing incumbents the benefit of pay parity otherwise admissible to them.

The third contention made on behalf of petitioners is also not acceptable, as the UGC pay scales are applicable only to teaching posts, whereas the post of Electrician is a non-teaching post.

Since learned Tribunal has considered all relevant aspects in great detail and gave valid reasons for allowing the claim petition filed by the private respondents, therefore, we do not find any scope for interference with the impugned judgment and order. Writ petition thus fails and is dismissed.