JODH SINGH TOMKYAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Consti tution of India, the petitioners have sought following reliefs- "1. To issue a writ, order or direc tion in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant the special pay, special work allowance, one month's extra pay for every financial year, motor cycle subsidy and allow ance to the petitioners who are Ministerial staff of the Civil Po lice force posted in different wings of the police force as there counterpart (i. e. Executive Staff of Police Force) are already get ting from 1-4-1979. II. To issue a writ, order or direc tion in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to provide the consequential benefits of arrears of allowance etc. to the petitioners with interest up date from 1-4- 1979. III. Any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. IV. To award cost throughout. "

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) THE stand taken by the respond ents is strange and unacceptable. Prior to creation of State of Uttarakhand there was no question of impleading them in the writ petitions. Under Section 86 of the U. P Reorganisation Act, 2000, any law in force immediately before the appointed day (9-11-2000) to the State of U. P shall until otherwise provided by the competent legislature or other com petent authority is applicable to both the successor States. Section 87 empowers the successor States to make the adap tations and modifications but nothing appears to have been modified by the State of Uttarakhand, which disentitles the petitioners' benefits of the Govern ment Orders under which the ministerial staff of police force is being paid one month's extra salary and other benefits to them. It is pertinent to quote the ob servations/directions made by the Apex Court in the similar controversy arising out of Writ Petition No. 4810 of 1999 in its judgment and order dated 17-1-2007, passed in Civil Appeal No. 1926- 1928 of 2004, State of U. P. Vs. P. P. Mishra & others- "in view of series of decisions which have been challenged before the Di vision Bench and before this Court, the ratio laid down in K. K. Mishra (supra) has been affirmed by this Court by dismissing the special leave petition. Nothing remained to be de cided in this matter as special leave petition has been dismissed by this Court and order passed in this case of K. K. Mishra, has been subse quently followed by learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. THErefore, now it has come to stay that ministerial staff working in Police shall also be enti tled to same benefits as police per sonnel are getting i. e. one month extra pay in every financial year. Ac cordingly, these appeals and special leave petition are dismissed. No or der as to costs. " Proceedings relating to the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 4810/1999, were covered under Section 90 of U. P Reorganization Act, 2000, and State of Uttarakhand is also bound by the judgment of the Allahabad High Court upheld by the apex court.