Manoj Kumar Agarwal Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Cooperative

Since common question of law and fact are involved in these petitions, therefore, these are being heard and decided together. However, for brevity, facts

¶35

1

¶36

2025:UHC:741

¶37

of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2041 of 2018 alone are being considered and discussed.

¶38

Petitioners are serving in different sugar factories situate in State of Uttarakhand. According to them, their wages were last revised vide Government Order dated 29.12.2016 for a period of five years commencing from 01.10.2015. However, by the impugned order dated 12.06.2018, the said Government Order dated 29.12.2016 was suspended w.e.f. 01.04.2018. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court challenging the Government Order dated 12.06.2018.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that wages of employees serving in vacuum pan sugar factories are to be revised after five years; after State reorganisation, Uttarakhand Government revised the wages vide Government Order dated 4.01.2006, which was effective till 30.09.2010, and thereafter, the wages were again revised vide Government Order dated 21.08.2012 for a block period of five years between 01.10.2010 to 30.09.2015. Thereafter, the wages were lastly revised vide Government Order dated 29.12.2016, which has been illegally stayed. Consequently, the employees of sugar factories are denied benefit of wage revision.

¶40

Learned State Counsel as well as Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Sugar Mill, however, submit that wages of employees serving in sugar factories for the block period 2010-15 were revised vide Government Order dated 21.08.2012. However, by Government Order dated 13.06.2014,

¶41

2

¶42

2025:UHC:741

¶43

State Government further provided that there should be an enhancement in the salary after adding 50% amount of dearness allowance in their basic pay and in the Government Order it was provided that it is an interim arrangement and will be subject to final decision, which will be taken by a tripartite committee and the benefit of Government Order dated 13.06.2024 was also given to all the employees. They further submit that Government of Uttarakhand again issued an Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2016, which provided that 50% of the dearness allowance payable to such employees shall be merged in the basic pay. They submit that due to Government Orders dated 13.06.2024 and 29.12.2016, huge financial burden was caused upon the sugar factories, which were already suffering losses, inasmuch as, the wages payable to certain category of employees were 98% higher than what their counterparts were getting in sugar factories situate in State of U.P. and for all other employees, the wages were 50% more than that what was being paid to similarly placed employees in State of U.P. They further contend that the sugar factories highlighted their plight before the State Government and the State Government took a decision to keep the wage revision made by Government order dated 29.12.2016 in abeyance to ensure that the sugar factories are not shut down resulting in unemployment and industrial unrest.

¶44

This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsels for the respondents that this is a case of correction of mistake. After revising the wage structure of employees, serving in sugar factories

¶45

3

¶46

2025:UHC:741

¶47

more than once for the block period of 2010-15, the State Government realised that any further enhancement in the wages would be counterproductive for the sugar industry, therefore, it suspended the last pay revision made vide Government Order dated 29.12.2016. The decision taken by the State Government appears to be in public interest to ensure that the sugar factories keep running in the State.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that the impugned decision is in violation of any statutory provision, including standing orders. Even otherwise also, a Government Order cannot be tested on the touchstone of standing orders that too before a High Court and the proper remedy would be to approach an industrial adjudicator under Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, there is no scope for interference.

¶49

Be that as it may, since the block period of 2015-20, for which the wages were last revised, is over long back and the next block period is about to come to an end on 30.09.2025, therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of by directing the State Government to consider constituting of Wage Board within four months from today. The Wage Board, if constituted, shall submit its report to the State Government, within next eight months. The excess amount, if any, paid to the petitioners on the strength of interim order passed by this Court, shall not be recovered from them.

¶50

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 11.02.2025

¶51

Aswal

¶52

4

Manoj Kumar Agarwal v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Cooperative

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Agarwal v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Cooperative

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. Vs Shri Sobat

In Re in the Matter of Parole of Shyam Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Kalpana Vs Devendra Singh

Vijay Bhushan Garg Vs State of Uttarkahand

Istakar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sangat Singh Saini Vs State of Uttarakhand