Uttarakhand Sugars And Others vs Sunil Kumar And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Sri T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of appellants and Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners, and, with their consent, the appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission.

The respondents-writ petitioners herein invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing WPSS No. 333 of 2019 seeking a mandamus directing the respondents, more particularly respondent no. 2, to grant equal pay for equal work to the respondents-writ petitioners w.e.f. their regular appointment for the work and duties taken from them of higher post while giving him them the salary of a Mazdoor.

At the stage of admission of the writ petition, and even without the appellants herein being given an opportunity of filing their counter affidavit, the learned Single Judge observed that, since the respondent-writ petitioners were appointed under the Dying in Harness Rules, such appointment is always regular in nature. The writ petition was disposed of directing the appellants to consider and take an appropriate decision on payment of equal salary in the light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh and others : (2017) 1 SCC 148. The appellants were directed to consider the representation within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order.

The submission of Sri T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel, is that the appellants herein were not given an opportunity to file their counter affidavit rebutting the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition; and, even without the appellants being granted an opportunity to rebut these contentions, the writ petition was disposed of at the stage of admission.

We asked Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of behalf of respondents-writ petitioners, whether the appellants were given an opportunity of filing their counter affidavit. Learned counsel would fairly submit that, while they were not given such an opportunity, they were nonetheless heard. The writ petition was filed on 18.02.2019 and was disposed of by the impugned order on the very next day i.e. 19.02.2019. It is evident, therefore, that the appellants were denied an opportunity of filing their counter affidavit.

The order under appeal must be and is, accordingly, set aside on this short ground. The writ petition is restored to file.

Sri T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the appellants would file their counter affidavit, in the writ petition, within two weeks from today. It is open to Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners, to request the learned Single Judge to take up the writ petition for admission and hearing on any date after two weeks from today.

The Special Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.

Since the Special Appeal is finally disposed of by this order, we see no reason to require the appellants to rectify the deficiencies pointed by the Registry.