Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 687 (UTT)

Gajendra Singh Rautela v. State of Uttarakhand

2012-11-07

V.K.BIST

body2012
JUDGMENT V.K. Bist, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Since controversy involved in these petitions is identical, hence both these petitions are being decided by a common judgment. 3. All the petitioners were initially appointed in regular civil police department. Their parent department is Civil Police. Member of Civil Police can be sent by way of transfer in other wings of police i.e. C.B. CID, Vigilance, Cooperative Cell, Hydle Vigilance etc. The petitioners are working in C.B. CID wing and are working on the post of Inspector. On 07.12.1979, the erstwhile state of Uttar Pradesh issued a Govt. Order whereby the State Government granted one month’s extra salary to the non-gazetted officers and employees of the police department. 4. In the year 2001, the respondents started paying one month’s extra salary to the petitioners. The respondents continued to pay said salary to the petitioners till 23rd June, 2006 on which date, an order was passed by the Financial Comptroller of Police Headquarter, Dehradun asking the officer concerned to discontinue payment of one month’s extra salary to the petitioners and further to recover the amount which has already paid to them. Against the said order, instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order impugned is unreasonable, inasmuch as arbitrary and discriminatory, as other Sub-Inspectors of police, who are working in other departments on deputation, are being paid one month’s extra salary. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even ASI in C.B. CID and Constables are being paid such extra salary. It is vehemently contended that the work of the petitioners is to investigate upon various crimes for which they are required to go other parts of the State as also outside the State and for this purpose they also work even on second Saturday, Sundays and other Holidays. Thus, the respondents by denying one month’s extra salary to the petitioners have acted in arbitrary manner. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred the judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 5874 of 1994 Bishnu Swaroop Srivastava and others vs. State of U.P. and others, whereby the State of U.P. was directed to pay one month’s extra pay to those petitioners who are working in the Vigilance Establishment of U.P. Police. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred the judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 5874 of 1994 Bishnu Swaroop Srivastava and others vs. State of U.P. and others, whereby the State of U.P. was directed to pay one month’s extra pay to those petitioners who are working in the Vigilance Establishment of U.P. Police. Similarly, another Writ Petition No. 9248 of 1980 Vishnu Swaroop Srivastava and others vs. State of U.P. and others was also decided by the Allahabad High Court on 10.09.1991 whereby the State of U.P. was directed to pay one months extra salary to the petitioners similar to one month’s extra pay being paid to other personnel including those working in the vigilance establishment of U.P. Police with effect from 01.04.1979. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the case of the petitioners also falls on in similar footings. 6. Learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, argued that since the Government Order does not mention about the payment of one month’s extra salary to the personnel of C.B.CID, the order impugned has rightly been passed. He submitted that there is no question of discrimination, because the petitioners belongs to C.B. CID and they cannot be given one month’s extra salary, and this facility is given only to the persons working in the regular Police Department. 7. It is not denied that the petitioners, who are working in C.B. CID do not work on second Saturday, Sunday or other Holidays. Rather they are required to work on Saturday, Sunday and other Holidays as per the requirement of the job. Moreover, the petitioners are regular employees of Uttarakhand Police and they have been sent on deputation in C.B.CID. Apart from this fact, as per the requirement and service conditions the petitioners can be asked to work on Holidays also. The work of the petitioners, who are working in C.B. CID is to investigate upon various crimes. The members of C.B. CID investigate the matters in the same manner, rather thoroughly, in which the Inspectors of regular Police investigate. It is well known that only complicated matters are assigned to the C.B. CID wing. The Inspectors working in this wing are required to investigate thoroughly for which they have to visit anywhere in the State and outside the State as well. 8. It is well known that only complicated matters are assigned to the C.B. CID wing. The Inspectors working in this wing are required to investigate thoroughly for which they have to visit anywhere in the State and outside the State as well. 8. The main object of the said Govt. Order is simply to give incentive to the personnel of the police department and its various limbs for the arduous work, which they perform even on second Saturdays, Sundays and other Gazetted holidays. By passing the order impugned, the respondents intended to discerp the other wings of police department from regular police department, which seems to be unreasonable and discriminatory. 9. In view of above discussions, the writ petitions are allowed. Impugned order dated 23.06.2006 passed by Finance Comptroller Uttarakhand/respondent no.4 is hereby set-aside. The respondents are directed to make payment of one month’s extra salary to the petitioners, alongwith arrears. 10. Let certified copy of this order be also placed in the connected writ petition.