RAJENDRA SINGH NEGI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010081242024
2026:UHC:10254
Judgment reserved on: 07.10.2026
Judgment delivered on: 05.11.2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
05 November, 2026
1. Writ Petition Service Single No. 897 of 2024
Rajendra Singh Negi --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
2.
Writ Petition Service Single No. 1081 of 2024
Rajpal Singh Negi --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
3.
Writ Petition Service Single No. 1082 of 2024
Rajendra Shah --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
4. Writ Petition Service Single No. 1083 of 2024
Yatendra Singh Rana --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
5. Writ Petition Service Single No. 1088 of 2024
Surendra Ram --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
6. Writ Petition Service Single No. 1092 of 2024
Damodar Prasad Purohit --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
7.
Writ Petition Service Single No. 1109 of 2024
Tikendra Singh --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
8.
Writ Petition Service Single No. 1180 of 2024
Jagatram Bhatt --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
9. Writ Petition Service Single No. 1198 of 2024
Sohan Singh --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
1
UKHC010081242024
2026:UHC:10254
10. Writ Petition Service Single No. 1199 of 2024
Jalam Singh Rawat --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
11.
Writ Petition Service Single No. 1205 of 2024
Manohar Singh --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
12.
Writ Petition Service Single No. 1589 of 2024
Shiv Singh --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
13. Writ Petition Service Single No. 1590 of 2024
Anusuya Prasad Naugain --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
14. Writ Petition Service Single No. 1593 of 2024
Vipin Chandra Mishra --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
15. Writ Petition Service Single No. 1594 of 2024
Pushkar Singh Bisht --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
16.
Writ Petition Service Single No. 1595 of 2024
Bhagwati Prasad Purohit --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
17. Writ Petition Service Single No. 1596 of 2024
Pramod Kumar Nawani --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
18. Writ Petition Service Single No. 1610 of 2024
Pushkar Singh Bhandari --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
19. Writ Petition Service Single No. 1725 of 2024
Chandan Singh --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
2
UKHC010081242024
2026:UHC:10254
20. Writ Petition Service Single No. 1728 of 2024
Sukhbir Singh --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
21.
Writ Petition Service Single No. 1816 of 2024
Hemant Kumar Bahuguna --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
22.
Writ Petition Service Single No. 1820 of 2024
Chandra Mohan Dwivedi --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
23. Writ Petition Service Single No. 1825 of 2024
Radha Rawat --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
24. Writ Petition Service Single No. 1826 of 2024
Deveshwari Rawat --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
25. Writ Petition Service Single No. 1827 of 2024
Raghubir Lal --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
26.
Writ Petition Service Single No. 1833 of 2024
Prakash Chandra --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
27. Writ Petition Service Single No. 2172 of 2024
Bakhtawar Singh --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence :-
Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for petitioner(s).
Mr. Rahul Verma, learned A.A.G. for the State of
Uttarakhand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Since common question of law and facts are
involved in these writ petitions, hence, they are being taken
3
UKHC010081242024
2026:UHC:10254
up together and are being decided by this common judgment.
However, for the sake of brevity, the facts of WPSS No.897 of
2024 are taken into consideration alone.
2. In writ petition No.897 of 2024, petitioner has
challenged the order dated 14.05.2024 passed by respondent
No.4 (Annexure No.8) and further prayed for a direction to
respondents to re-fix the pay of petitioner in the pay scale of
₹ 14430/- ( ₹ 10230+ ₹ 4200), fixed as vide order dated
07.07.2013 from 10.05.2006, re-fix the pension of petitioner,
and also to pay the difference of salary and pension and also
pay the amount, which was recovered by the respondents
from petitioner along with 18% interest.
3. The facts of the case are that petitioner was
appointed as a Constable in the Police Department on
10.05.1982 and, during the course of his service, was granted
the benefit of pay fixation under the recommendations of the
Sixth Pay Commission. Pursuant to the Government Orders
dated 17.10.2008 and 13.02.2009, petitioner's pay was fixed
in the pay structure of ₹ 10,230–4,200–14,430 by the
departmental order dated 07.07.2013, after taking into
consideration the option submitted by him. Subsequently, by
order dated 31.03.2022, the respondent authorities reduced
the petitioner's pay to ₹ 9,300–4,200–13,500, thereby
withdrawing the benefit of the earlier pay fixation. Aggrieved
thereby, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ
Petition No.527 of 2023 (S/S). The said writ petition was
disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 05.01.2024,
whereby, the earlier order of reduction was set aside and the
respondent authorities were directed to reconsider the matter
after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
4. In compliance with the aforesaid directions, the
petitioner was issued a notice dated 06.04.2024, pursuant to
which he submitted his representation dated 12.04.2024.
However, upon reconsideration, the respondent authorities,
4
UKHC010081242024
2026:UHC:10254
vide order dated 14.05.2024, maintained the reduction of the
petitioner's pay in the scale of ₹ 9,300–4,200–13,500.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the
present writ petition seeking its quashing and restoration of
his pay in the earlier scale, along with consequential benefits.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that
controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely
covered by the judgment dated 13.08.2021 passed by
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No.609
of 2020 Ramchandra Tomar vs. State of Uttarakhand and
Others , and connected matters, wherein, the claim of
similarly situated employees for fixation of pay under the
Government Order dated 17.10.2008 was considered and
allowed. It is further submitted that the issue had earlier
been considered in Writ Petition (S/S) No.2876 of 2017 Rai
Singh Negi v. State of Uttarakhand, wherein, the entitlement of
employees, who had exercised their options under the
aforesaid Government Order was recognized. State challenged
the said judgment in Special Appeal No.148 of 2019, which
was decided on 02.04.2019, whereby, the Division Bench
declined to interfere with the finding regarding entitlement,
while directing the authorities to undertake individual pay
calculations after issuing notices and considering the
objections of the concerned employees. The connected Special
Appeal No.262 of 2019, arising out of the matter of
Ramchandra Tomar (supra) , was also disposed of on
04.04.2019 in terms of the aforesaid decision.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits
that the judgment dated 13.08.2021 in
Ramchandra Tomar
(supra) was also implemented by the Department itself. In
this regard, reliance is placed upon the order dated
27.12.2021 issued by the Commandant, 40th Battalion PAC,
Haridwar, whereby the pay of similarly situated employees
was fixed in the pay structure of ₹ 10,230–4,200–14,430 with
5
UKHC010081242024
2026:UHC:10254
effect from 01.01.2006. It is contended that the petitioner,
being similarly situated, cannot be denied the same benefit. It
is further pointed out that the petitioner's own pay had
already been fixed in the aforesaid higher pay structure vide
departmental order dated 07.07.2013, after consideration of
the option exercised by him under the relevant Government
Orders. Having extended the benefit to the petitioner, the
respondents could not subsequently reduce his pay to
₹ 9,300–4,200–13,500 without valid justification. Accordingly,
the impugned order dated 14.05.2024 is assailed as being
arbitrary and contrary to the aforesaid judicial
pronouncements.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the
petitioner was not entitled to fixation of his pay in the higher
pay structure, as he had failed to exercise the requisite option
within the prescribed period under the applicable
Government Orders. It is contended that the petitioner
submitted his option only on 10.09.2016, much beyond the
stipulated time, and therefore, he could not claim the benefit
of the higher pay structure on the basis of such belated
option. The impugned order dated 14.05.2024 was passed
after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and
considering his representation, in compliance with the
directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition. It
is, therefore, contended that the impugned order does not
suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference
by this Court.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
upon perusal of the material available on record, the principal
question which arises for consideration is whether the
respondents were justified in reducing the petitioner's pay
from ₹ 10,230–4,200–14,430 to ₹ 9,300–4,200–13,500, despite
its earlier fixation in the higher pay structure by the
departmental order dated 07.07.2013. The controversy
6
UKHC010081242024
2026:UHC:10254
regarding entitlement of similarly situated police personnel to
the benefit of the revised pay structure under the Government
Order dated 17.10.2008 has already been considered by this
Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No.2876 of 2017 Rai Singh Negi v.
State of Uttarakhand
, decided on 27.09.2018. The said
judgment was challenged by the State in Special Appeal
No.148 of 2019, which was disposed of on 02.04.2019,
without interference with the finding regarding the employees'
entitlement, while directing individual consideration of their
pay fixation. The connected Special Appeal No. 262 of 2019
was also disposed of on 04.04.2019 in terms of the aforesaid
decision. Subsequently, this Court, in Writ Petition (S/S) No.
609 of 2020 Ramchandra Tomar v. State of Uttarakhand and
Others , and connected matters, decided on 13.08.2021,
considered the same controversy and granted relief to the
employees concerned. The said judgment of the Coordinate
Bench has not been shown to have been stayed or set aside
by any superior Court and, therefore, continues to hold the
field.
9. It is further evident from the material placed on
record that the Department acted upon the judgment dated
13.08.2021. The Police Headquarters issued an order dated
25.12.2021 in reference to the said judgment, and the
subsequent departmental records demonstrate that the
benefit of the revised pay structure was extended to similarly
situated personnel. This conduct of the Department lends
support to the petitioner's contention that the benefit flowing
from the aforesaid judgment was implemented in respect of
similarly situated employees. In the present case, the
petitioner's pay had already been fixed in the higher pay
structure of ₹ 10,230–4,200–14,430 by the departmental order
dated 07.07.2013, after taking into consideration his option
under the relevant Government Orders, including the
Government Order dated 13.02.2009. The respondents,
however, seek to justify the subsequent reduction on the
7
UKHC010081242024
2026:UHC:10254
ground that the petitioner had submitted his option only on
10.09.2016. This stand is difficult to reconcile with the
petitioner's own pay-fixation order of 2013. The respondents
have failed to satisfactorily explain how the petitioner's option
could have been considered and his pay fixed in the higher
structure in 2013, if the option had been submitted for the
first time only in 2016. Further, the impugned order does not
satisfactorily deal with the effect of the aforesaid
departmental order or the judgment in
Ramchandra Tomar
(supra) , despite the specific reliance placed upon them by the
petitioner.
10. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the
respondents have failed to establish any cogent or legally
sustainable ground for reducing the petitioner's pay,
particularly when his entitlement had already been
recognized by the Department through the order dated
07.07.2013 and the controversy concerning similarly situated
employees stands covered by the judgment in
Ramchandra
Tomar (supra) . Consequently, the impugned order dated
14.05.2024 is unsustainable in law and is liable to be
quashed.
11. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed. The
impugned order(s) in all these writ petitions are quashed. The
respondents are directed to restore and re-fix the pay of
petitioners in all the writ petitions in pay structure of
₹ 10,230–4,200–14,430, with all consequential service
benefits, including revision of pension, as admissible under
law.
12. Pending application(s), in all the writ petitions, if
any, stands disposed of.
( .)
Pankaj Purohit, J
05.11.2026
PN
PREETI
NEGI
Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f02 76c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84 BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2026.11.05 14:47:04 +05'30'
8