Uttarakhand HC Restores Higher Pay For 27 Police Personnel After State Fails To Explain Earlier Fixation, Orders Pension Revision

In brief

The question

1. Whether the respondents were justified in reducing the petitioners’ pay from ₹10,230–₹4,200–₹14,430 to ₹9,300–₹4,200–₹13,500 despite its earlier fixation in the higher structure

The court held

The Court allowed all the writ petitions and quashed the impugned orders.

It also directed

It directed the respondents to restore and re-fix the petitioners’ pay in the structure of ₹10,230–₹4,200–₹14,430, with consequential service benefits, including pension revision, as admissible under law.

Any pending applications were disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioners, police personnel, challenged orders reducing their pay from the structure of ₹10,230–₹4,200–₹14,430 to ₹9,300–₹4,200–₹13,500.

pp. 4–6

In the lead petition, Rajendra Singh Negi’s pay had been fixed in the higher structure by departmental order dated 07.07.2013; after a prior reduction was set aside for reconsideration, the authorities issued the impugned order dated 14.05.2024 maintaining the reduction.

pp. 4–6

The petitioners relied on earlier decisions concerning similarly situated employees, while the State contended that the required option had been submitted late.

pp. 4–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the respondents were justified in reducing the petitioners’ pay from ₹10,230–₹4,200–₹14,430 to ₹9,300–₹4,200–₹13,500 despite its earlier fixation in the higher structure

¶ 8 · p. 6

ii.2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to restoration of that pay structure and consequential service benefits, including pension revision, in light of the decisions concerning similarly situated employees

¶ 8–11 · pp. 6–8

03Law Applied

The Court relied on Rai Singh Negi v. State of Uttarakhand, W.P. (S/S) No. 2876 of 2017, and the related special appeals, in which the employees’ entitlement was not disturbed and individual pay fixation was directed to be considered.

¶ 8 · p. 7

It also relied on Ramchandra Tomar v. State of Uttarakhand and Others, W.P. (S/S) No. 609 of 2020 and connected matters, which granted relief concerning fixation under the Government Order dated 17.10.2008 and had not been shown to have been stayed or set aside.

¶ 5, 8 · p. 5, 7

The Court’s application of those decisions was that a previously recognised pay fixation could not be reduced without a cogent and legally sustainable basis, particularly where similarly situated employees had received the benefit.

¶ 9–10 · p. 8

04Reasoning

The Department’s assertion that the lead petitioner first submitted his option in 2016 was difficult to reconcile with its own 2013 order fixing his pay in the higher structure.

¶ 9–10 · p. 8

The respondents did not satisfactorily explain that inconsistency or address the effect of the prior pay-fixation order and Ramchandra Tomar.

¶ 9–10 · p. 8

The Department’s implementation of the 2021 judgment for similarly situated personnel further supported the petitioners’ claim.

¶ 9–10 · p. 8

In those circumstances, the Court found no sustainable basis for the reductions.

¶ 9–10 · p. 8