Judgment By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought following reliefs" I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant the special pay, special work allowance, one month's extra pay for every financial year, motor cycle subsidy and allowance to the petitioners who are Ministerial staff of the Civil Police force posted in different wings of the police force as there counter part (i.e. Executive Staff of Police Force) are already getting from 1-4-1979. II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to provide the consequential benefits of arrears of allowance etc. to the petitioners with interest update from 1-4-1979. III. Any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court fit and proper under the circumstances 'of the case. . IV. To award cost throughout. " 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners are non-gazetted personnel of State Police working in different wings of Police Department. 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 UP Government Order No. 7252N1I1-A-94~56, dated September 6, 1966 issued by Home Department (Police-A) (copy annexure 1 to the writ petition). Vide D.O. No. 111/4-174-66, dated September 17,1966 (a copy of which is annexure 2 to the writ petition), 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 Misra and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) which was decided by the Allahabad High Court on 23-09-1991 (copy of the judgment Annexure 3 to the writ petition. State of U.P. and others) which was decided by the Allahabad High Court on 23-09-1991 (copy of the judgment Annexure 3 to the writ petition. By said order Allahabad High Court issued following directions in its concluding para 13 which is being reproduced below':4 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 UP 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 pleaded in the present writ petition 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 (a copy of said order is annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition). The petitioners have pleaded that the denial of allowance and benefits provided to the policemen of the executive cadre of police force is arbitrary and discriminatory and violative 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 (copy of which is annexure 5 to the writ petition) whereby washing allowance -and holiday allowance to the non gazetted employees of vigilance establishment was given by the State Government. In para 11 of the writ petition attention of this Court is drawn to Government Order No. 39/(4)- 40(261 )/84, dated 10/11 March 1988, whereby the above benefit was extended to all the inspectors and sub-inspectors of the vigilance department. Lastly it is pleaded in Writ Petition No. 141 of 2000 (S/S) (Vijay Prakash Srivastava & others Vs. State & others), Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court vide its judgment and order dated 13-01-2000 (a copy of which is Annexure 30 to the writ petition) directed the State Government to pay one month's extra salary to the ministerial staff of the police force. State & others), Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court vide its judgment and order dated 13-01-2000 (a copy of which is Annexure 30 to the writ petition) 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 24111 March, 2000 (a copy which is Annexure 29 to the writ petition) 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. Regarding the payment being made under the orders of the Allahabad High Court to certain members of the ministerial staff by the State of U.P. it is stated in the counter affidavit that Uttarakhand Police Department was not party in those writ petitions. 5. The stand taken by the respondents is strange and unacceptable. Prior to creation of State of Uttarakhand there was no question of impleading them in the writ petitions. Under Section 86 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, any law in force immediately before the appointed day (9-112000) to the State of U.P., shall until otherwise provided by the competent legislature or other competent authority is applicable to both the successor States. Section 87 empowers the successor States to make the adaptations and modifications but nothing appears to have been modified by the State of Uttarakhand, which disentitles the petitioners' benefits of the Government Orders under which the ministerial staff of police force is being paid one month's extra salary and other benefits to them. Section 87 empowers the successor States to make the adaptations and modifications but nothing appears to have been modified by the State of Uttarakhand, which disentitles the petitioners' benefits of the Government Orders under which the ministerial staff of police force is being paid one month's extra salary and other benefits to them. 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.