Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 168 (UTT)

Girish Chandra Pandey v. State of Uttarakhand

2017-03-08

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. All the petitioners before this Court are Class IV employees in the Cooperative Drugs Factory at Ranikhet, District Almora. Admittedly the Cooperative Drugs Factory is under the control of apex body i.e. Uttarakhand State Co-operative Federation Ltd. 2. The case of the petitioners before this Court is that earlier they were given an “Assured Career Progression” (in short ‘ACP’) in terms of the Government Order dated 08.03.2011. As per the said Government Order, the ACP benefits were liable to be given after completion of 10 years, 18 years and 26 years of service. This has been re-scheduled by the State Government vide Government Order dated 01.07.2013 by which the benefits of ACP are liable to be given after completion of 10 years, 16 years and 26 years of service. In other words, the second ACP benefit is liable to be given after a gap of six years and not after a gap of eight years, as was earlier. 3. According to the petitioners, this has been implemented in case of Class III employees of the Cooperative Drug Factory but it has not been done in the case of Class IV employees of the factory. 4. The second contention of the petitioners is that at the time of second ACP benefit earlier, their grade pay was to be increased from Rs. 1900/- to Rs. 2000/- but now as per the Government Order dated 01.07.2013, the grade pay of Rs. 2000/- has been bypassed and now straightway a grade pay of Rs.2400/- is to be given. According to the petitioners, the benefit of Government Order dated 01.07.2013 is being given to the Class III employees of the factory, who are in the different grade pay, such as an example has been taken of Mr. Sudhir Pathak, who has been given a grade pay of Rs.4600/- instead of Rs.4200/-, whereas a grade pay of Rs. 2400/- instead of Rs. 2000/- has been denied to the petitioners. 5. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 would argue that there is no provision for this jump in the grade pay in the case of Class III employees or even in the case of Mr. Sudhir Pathak, as has been stated in the example. Even in case of Mr. Sudhir Pathak it has not been done. 6. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 would argue that there is no provision for this jump in the grade pay in the case of Class III employees or even in the case of Mr. Sudhir Pathak, as has been stated in the example. Even in case of Mr. Sudhir Pathak it has not been done. 6. Since it would have matters of financial implications and since it would ultimately also be a matter of financial burden on the Cooperative Federation, it is best to leave it open to the Board of Management of Uttarakhand State Cooperative Federation Ltd. who shall take a decision in the matter of the petitioners. 7. Let a decision be taken by the Board of Management as to the jump in the grade pay of the petitioners to Rs. 2400/- instead of Rs. 2000/- within a period of three months, from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 8. As far as ACP is to be given to the employees after completion of sixteen years or eighteen years is concerned, since it has been implemented by the State Government vide Government Order dated 01.07.2013, let a decision be also taken on it as expeditiously as possible, but definitely within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid directions, all these writ petitions stand disposed.