JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. Though, this matter is listed today on an Urgency Application, being IA/11955/2022, which has been preferred by the petitioner, but with the consent of the parties to the Writ Petition itself, the same is being heard finally on its own merit. 2. In almost all the writ petitions, which are connected with this bunch matters, the petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents, to grant them upgraded grade pay of Rs. 2800/- to Rs. 4200/- by extension of the benefit as contemplated as per the Government Order dated 5th October 2015, as it had been issued by respondent No. 1, as well as a consequential Government Order, which had been issued in compliance thereto, i.e. Government Order dated 28 October 2016. 3. Simultaneously, they have also prayed for, that after the determination of the upgraded pay scale, based on the two Government Orders, they may also be paid with the interest, which would be due to be paid to them with effect from the date, when the other similarly placed employees were already extended with the benefit of grant of upgradation of the pay scale. 4. Brief facts of the case are, that the petitioners contended that they are Group-D employees, who are presently working with the respondents and they have submitted that responded No. 3, based on a communication dated 22nd October 2016 which was made to respondent No. 2 herein, had sought for requisite direction for the purposes of fixation of the pay-band and the grade-pay, which will they would be entitled to be paid to Group-D employees in the respective Division of the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends, that in furtherance of the aforesaid communication sought by the respondent No. 3 from the office of respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 2, vide its letter dated 28 October 2016, had given direction, that the Government Orders, based on which the pay scale was upgraded i.e. 15 October 2016, is still in force, and the promotional grade pay may be given to the petitioners and such similarly placed Group D employees from the date of the application of the Government Order dated 15 October 2015. 5. 5. The Government Order dated 28 October 2016, which has been annexed with the writ petition, it rather refers to the earlier Government Order dated 15 October 2015, whereby they have reiterated the stand that the Government Order No. 377/11/2015-01(09)/2020 dated 15th October 2015, was enforced to be made effective with immediate effect, in order to extend the benefit of the upgraded pay scale to the industrial establishments and the Group-D employees, working in it, in order to bring them within the ambit of grant of upgraded pay scale, which has been prayed for by the petitioners to be granted to them in the writ petition for the grant of grade pay of Rs. 4200/- by enhancing from the earlier grade pay of Rs. 2800/-. 6. The facts, which has come on record are, that as a consequence of the Office Memorandum dated 28th October 2016, in fact, the respondent had proceeded to extend the benefit of upgraded pay scale to the list of employees, whose name has been projected by the petitioner in Annexure 4 to the writ petition, who where the employees, who were working in the irrigation work shop, and had already been given with the upgraded pay scale of Rs. 5200/- to Rs. 20200/- with grade pay of Rs. 2400/-. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that since there was a disparity in the pay scale and the petitioners were not being meet out with an equal treatment, they have represented the matter before the respondents, by filing a representation dated 28th December 2016, contending thereof that they too should be brought within an upgraded pay and should be paid with grade pay of Rs. 4200/- in place of Rs. 2800/-, which was being initially paid to them. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that when despite several requests made by the petitioners and when the same was not paid to them, they preferred present writ petition on 22nd March 2018, seeking a writ of mandamus, as already referred to above. 9. Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4, have filed their counter affidavit on 2nd September 2019. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that when despite several requests made by the petitioners and when the same was not paid to them, they preferred present writ petition on 22nd March 2018, seeking a writ of mandamus, as already referred to above. 9. Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4, have filed their counter affidavit on 2nd September 2019. In the counter affidavit thus filed by them, they have submitted, that in pursuance to the aforesaid Government Orders, which have been referred thereto, in fact, in view of the Standing Orders, the petitioners would not be entitled for the extension of upgraded pay scale, as enforced by the Government Order dated 28th October 2016. 10. In response to the counter affidavit, the petitioners had filed rejoinder affidavit, and in the rejoinder affidavit, they have taken a stand that though this writ petition was initially considered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, and the co-ordinate bench vide its judgement dated 23rd March 2018, had disposed of the writ petition, directing the respondents to extend the benefit of the upgraded pay scale, as made applicable by the Government Order dated 5th October 2015, which was directed to be read in conjunction with the Office Memorandum dated 28 October 2016. 11. But, since the said final judgement dated 23rd October 2018, was passed even without inviting counter affidavit, the matter was carried before the Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of Special Appeals, with leading Special Appeal No. 719 of 2019, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Chetpal Giri and others, whereby the Division Bench of this Court, rendered the judgement on 19th August 2019, whereby, while setting aside the judgement of the coordinate Bench of this Court dated 23rd March 2018, had remitted the matter back to the learned Single Judge, to decide the matter afresh, only after inviting the counter affidavit from the respondents, on its own merit, and hence the proceedings of the writ petition had revived back. 12. Thereafter respondents have filed their counter affidavit to the writ petition as a consequence of the judgement of the Division Bench, and they have made an effort to deny the claim of the petitioners, which has been refuted by the petitioners by filing rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit, as filed by respondent Nos. 12. Thereafter respondents have filed their counter affidavit to the writ petition as a consequence of the judgement of the Division Bench, and they have made an effort to deny the claim of the petitioners, which has been refuted by the petitioners by filing rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit, as filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, in which, he has submitted that, in fact, the contention which has been raised by the respondents in the counter affidavit, may not be sustainable for the reason being, that the respondents, on their own, as would be apparent by the decision taken by them on 28th July 2018, in fact, they have already proceeded to extend the benefit of upgraded pay scale, though under the garb of the judgement of the learned Single Judge, as rendered in another writ petition, being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1968 of 2014, which was decided on 31st May 2018. But, while deciding the said claim of the petitioners, for the grant of upgraded pay scale, by the decision dated 28th July 2018, while making reference to the judgement dated 31st May 2018, rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1968 of 2014, rather, in fact, the benefit of the upgraded pay scale was foundationed upon the Letter No. 363 dated 28 October 2016, which was in furtherance of the Government Order No. 377/II-2015 – 01 (09)/2009 dated 5th October 2015, whereby the pay scale of Rs. 5200/- to Rs. 20200/-, along with Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/- has been made applicable based upon the Office Memorandum dated 28 October 2016. 13. The consequential effect of the decision dated 28 October 2016, it would be, that the very fact of issuance of the order dated 28 July 2016, would amount to, that in principle, the respondents have complied with the directions of the judgement, which had been rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1968 of 2014 on 31st May 2018; by extension of benefit on 28th July 2018. Though, the learned State counsel, had attempted to carve out an exception on the ground, that as against the judgement of the coordinate Bench of this Court, which was rendered on 31st May 2018, since the matter was taken up before the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 11 of 2021, State of Uttarakhand and three others Vs. Surendar Giri and others, and the Division Bench of this Court, while deciding the matter vide its judgement dated 4th January 2021, had made certain observations, that the extension of benefit, which was given as a consequence of the judgement dated 31st May 2018, cannot be deprived with, to be given to the employees, who were falling within the zone of consideration under the Office Memorandum dated 28th October 2016, because the financial crunch cannot itself, create any impediment, as such, for the purposes of extension of the upgraded benefit of pay scale. The relevant part of the Division Bench judgement dated 14th January 2021, is extracted hereunder:- “3. Before the learned Single Judge, the State conceded that the writ-petitioners were, indeed, entitled to be granted the revised pay-scale from 01.01.2006. However, due to the financial crunch, the writ-petitioners were not paid their rightful dues till 23.03.2011. It is because a concession was made by the State Government that the learned Single Judge was justified in granting the relief to the writ petitioners. 4. Moreover, it never lies in the mouth of the State to claim that it has financial crunch. Therefore, it will deny the rightful dues to its employees. The State is a model employer and in a catena of cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly opined that financial constraints are not a valid argument, which can be raised before the Court of law.” 14. In order to deny the claim of the petitioners based upon the Government Order dated 5th October 2015, and the consequential Office Memorandum dated 28th October 2016, the respondent Nos. 2 3 and 4, have filed a supplementary counter affidavit on 30th April 2022, in which they have taken a stand, that the benefit to the petitioners under the two Government Orders i.e. dated 5th October 2015 and 28th October 2015, could not be extended to them for the reason being, that subsequently, the directions, issued by the Government Order dated 28th October 2016, was later on withdrawn by the State Government by issuing the Office Memorandum dated 23rd May 2019. 15. 15. This Court is of the view, that merely because of the fact, that the Special Appeal, which had been preferred by the State, is pending consideration, as against the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 14th January 2021, will not create any hurdle but once the respondents themselves have proceeded to extend the benefit of the judgement dated 31st May 2018, by taking a decision on 28th July 2018, under the implications of the Office Memorandum dated 28th October 2016, which was issued by the respondents as a consequence of the Government Order dated 15th October 2015, in fact, mere pendency of an SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court, as against the judgement dated 14th January 2021, as rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, that in itself will not create any legal impediment, as such, to create a disparity in extension of the similar benefit to the petitioners, as it had been similarly extended to the similarly placed employees by the decision dated 28th July 2019. 16. In view of the aforesaid, since the petitioners claim also stand on the same footing, as that of the employees, who had already been extended with the benefits, as contained in Annexure 4 to the writ petition, and those whose claim stood decided by the judgement dated 28th July 2018, as well under the Government Order dated 5th October 2015, and the Office Memorandum dated 28th October 2016. In fact, there couldn’t have been any artificial classification, which could at all be made by the respondents, by taking a stand, that in view of a Government Order dated 23rd May 2019, since the Government Order dated 15th October 2015, had been done away, the extension of upgraded pay scale cannot be extended to the petitioners. 17. In fact, there couldn’t have been any artificial classification, which could at all be made by the respondents, by taking a stand, that in view of a Government Order dated 23rd May 2019, since the Government Order dated 15th October 2015, had been done away, the extension of upgraded pay scale cannot be extended to the petitioners. 17. The logic behind is, that any execution decision, which had been taken by the State agency after the extension of the benefit contemplated under it by a judicial dictum cannot override the effect of the legal implications flowing from the judgement, and that too, particularly, in the conditions where the respondents themselves have proceeded to comply with the judgement, on the one hand by passing an Order dated 28th July 2018, and thereafter taking a somersaulted stand for denying the benefit, on the pretext that an SLP is pending consideration against the judgment of Division Bench which, may not be a logic the inference, which would be available to be argued to the learned counsel for the respondents, and particularly, in the light of the fact, that merely pendency of an SLP, will not create any legal impediment for the purposes of extension of the benefit as it has been extended by the respondents by the Order dated 28th July 2018, to the petitioners too, particularly, when in the SLP, there is no interim order operating in favour of the respondents. 18. In that view of the matter, the writ petitions are allowed, and a writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents, to extend the similar benefit of the upgraded pay scale to the petitioners, as enforced by the Government Order No. 377 dated 15th October 2015, and the consequential Office Memorandum No. 363 dated 28th October 2016, which has been enforced after the judgement rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1968 of 2014, Surendar Giri and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, as decided on 31st May 2018, particularly, when the respondents themselves, on their own volition, they have already extended the benefit by an Order dated 28th July 2018, as such, the petitioners would too fall within the zone for consideration for the grant of upgraded pay scale in the light of the decision taken on 28th July 2018, and merely pendency of an SLP, will not create any bar or legal embargo, as such. Hence, while allowing of the writ petitions, and directing the respondents to determine the up-gradation of the pay scale of the petitioners under the Government Orders, already referred to above, it is hope and trusted, that the respondents would provide the upgraded pay scale to the petitioners, within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgement. 19. So far as the claim of interest is concerned, this Court is of the view, that since the benefit, which has been extended to the other similarly placed employees, by the decision dated 28th July 2018, after the settlement of the upgraded pay scale to the petitioners, the respondents may take into consideration for extension of benefit of interest, if permissible under law at the Bank rate, with effect from 28th July 2018 onwards, till the date of actual payment. Subject to the aforesaid, the Writ Petitions stand allowed. 20. Subsequent to the conclusion of the judgement, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, has attempted to carve out a distinction in the light of the pleadings, which has been raised by him in para 5 of the counter affidavit, to the effect, that Group-D employees, who were working in the Government Industrial Establishment of Irrigation Workshop, Roorkee, district Haridwar, their services would be governed by the Industrial Employment Standing Orders of 1946. 21. This bald statement made by the learned Addl. CSC, in the counter affidavit doesn't stand substantiated in any many by the Government Orders, based on which the upgraded pay scale was already earlier extended to the employees, similarly placed to the petitioners. Nor does the Government Order, itself carves out any distinction as such on the basis of the Standing Orders, which has been referred to by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, in its para 5 of the counter affidavit. 22. Not even that, the list of employees, who have already been extended with the benefit of the revised grade pay based on the Government Orders already referred to above, as supplied by the petitioners (Annexure 4 to the writ petition), in fact, no apparent distinction could be carved out, because these too were the employees, who were otherwise not covered by the Standing Orders, the reference of which, has been made in para 5 of the counter affidavit. Not even that, when the matter was decided by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgement dated 31st May 2018, and when the directions were issued to consider the actual claim of the benefit, for the purposes of upgradation of the pay scale, based upon the two Government Orders, referred to above, no such specific stand has been ever taken by the respondents, either before the coordinate Bench of this Court, while rendering the judgement dated 31st May 2018, or even before the Division Bench of this Court at the first available opportunity, when the matter was decided while dealing with the issue of the financial crunch, which was the only aspect, which was then argued by the learned counsel for the respondents in their Special Appeal. 23. Furthermore, the stand taken by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, was as an afterthought that after the delivery of the principal judgement, it cannot be substantiated, because once again they themselves had enforced the judgement dated 31st May 2018, by the Decision No. 1888 of 28th July 2018 without drawing any such aforesaid distinction based on alleged standing order, they would be rather stopped to take a different stand in the matters of the petitioners, for the relief prayed for. 24. With all due reverences at my command, I don't find that when the extension of benefit of the Government Order dated 5th October 2015, and the effect of Office Memorandum dated 28th October 2016, was already extended to the similarly placed employees, no such exception was ever attempted to be carved out in the said decision, which had been taken by them, qua the pleadings raised in para 5 of the counter affidavit, because in case, if their case was that the service of the petitioners would be governed by the Standing Orders, then they ought to have taken their stand therein at that stage but as ever since the first stage of the proceedings when the matter was initially decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide its judgement dated 31st May 2018 no such case was ever attempted to be developed, even till the stage when the issue was carried before the Hon’ble Apex Court. 25. 25. In that eventuality, when the respondents themselves have submitted to the decision on 31st May 2018, and had accepted it, they cannot now be permitted to take altogether a contrary stand, which they had not otherwise pressed, when the matter was decided by the decision on 31st May 2018 or when the matter was decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 24th January 2021. Hence, the respondents are estopped to take a contrary stand at this stage when they themselves submitted to the judgments, and that the judgement rendered by the coordinate Benches of this Court, hence the stand taken by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, is not acceptable by this Court and is turndown, and the writ of mandamus as issued above is hereby sustained to be complied with by the respondents within the aforesaid time period as prescribed.