IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT

NAINITAL
------------------------------------
INDEX
IN
SUPPLEMETNARY COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
(On behalf of Respondent No. 2, 3 & 4)
TO
THE
REJOINDER AFFIDAVIT
(filed by the petitioner)
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 755 (S/S) OF 2018
(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
(District- Haridwar )
Satish Kumar Sharma & Others ……….. Petitioner.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others ……….. Respondents.
Sl. Particulars Page
No. Nos.
1. Index
2. Civil Misc. Application
3. Supplementary Counter Affidavit
4. Annexure S.C.A.-1 True/ correct typed version/ photo copy
of the Service Regulation of Junior Engineer
5. Annexure S.C.A.-2 True/ correct typed version/ photo copy
of the parameter of foreman.
6. Annexure S.C.A.-3 True/ correct typed version/ photo copy
of the G.O. dated 04-09-2013.
7. Annexure S.C.A.- 4 True/ correct typed version/ photo
copy of the Regulations of Irrigation Manual

Dated: / /2021 (Indu Sharma)

Brief Holder
High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
---------------------------------
SUPPLEMETNARY COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
(On behalf of Respondent No. 2, 3 & 4)
TO
THE
REJOINDER AFFIDAVIT
(filed by the petitioner)
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 755 (S/S) OF 2018
(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
(District- Haridwar )

1- Satish Kumar Sharma,Shri Trilok Chand Sharma R/o Village Jaswawala,

Post Office – Dhanauri, Tehsil & District- Haridwar.
2- Arvind Kumar Rajput, S/o Late Shri Kameshwar Singh, R/o A/3
Workshop Colony Prem Mandir Road, 11 Civil Line Roorkee, Haridwar,
District- Haridwar.
3- Hetram S/o Late Shri Samanti Singh, R/o RB-26 Ram Bhawan, Satti
Mohalla Roorkee, Tehsil Roorkee, District- Haridwar.
4- Kunwar Singh S/o Late Shri Santa Singh, R/o C-4 Workshop Colony,
Pathanpura Roorkee, Tehsil, Tehsil- Roorkee, District- Haridwar.
5- Mahakpal S/o Late Shri Marod Singh R/o B/7 Workshop Colony Road, 11
Civil Line Roorkee, Haridwar, District- Haridwar.
6- Tejveer Singh S/o Late Shri Bhopal Singh R/o Village Gummawala Majri,
Tehsil & District- Haridwar.

All petitioners posted on the post of Foreman at Irrigation workshop,

Roorkee, Haridwar, District- Haridwar.
......... Petitioners.

1- State of Uttarakhand, Irrigation Department, through its Additional

Secretary, Secretariat, Dehradun.
 2- Chief Engineer & Head of the Department,(Personnel Section ) Irrigation
Department, Yamuna Colony, Dehradun.
3- Superintending Engineer, Tube- Well Division ( Establishment) Roorkee,
Haridwar, District- Haridwar.
4- Executive Engineer, Irrigation Workshop , Roorkee, Haridwar, District-
Haridwar.
……….. Respondents.

Affidavit of Shri Suresh Pal Aged about 58

years, S/o Late Shri Bhullan Singh Presently
posted as Executive Engineer, Irrigation
Workshop, Roorkee, Haridwar, District- Haridwar
(Deponent)

I, the deponent named above do hereby solemnly affirm and state on

oath as under:-
1. That the deponent is presently posted as Executive Engineer, Irrigation
Workshop, Roorkee, Haridwar, District- Haridwar and has been arrayed as
respondent no.4 and has been authorized to file the Supplementary Counter
affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 3 in the present writ petition and
filing this Supplementary Counter affidavit to the rejoinder affidavit filed by
petitioner, as such he is well conversant with the facts of the case.

2. That the deponent has read and understood the contents of the Rejoinder
affidavit, annexures appended thereto and having gone through the relevant
records pertaining to the matter and is in a position to file the instant
supplementary affidavit/ reply to the rejoinder affidavit.

3. That in reply to the contents of para no.4 of the rejoinder affidavit are not
admitted and in reply thereof it is further submitted that vide letter dated
 01-06-2016 issued by the Chief Executive Engineer, stating that the matter
of the pay differences between junior engineer and foreman has also been
sent to the Head of the Department for consideration and it also bring notice
to the Hon’ble Court that the service regulation and parameters of both the
department i.e. Industrial Establishment and Regulations, made for the
junior engineer, are very much different to each other. Hence the foreman of
the Industrial Establishment cannot be equally considered as to the Junior
Engineer with regards to their pay scale. True/ correct typed version/ photo
copy of the Service Regulation of Junior Engineer and parameter of
foreman are being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure S.C.A.-1
and Annexure S.C.A.-2 to this affidavit.

4. That the contents of para no.5 of the rejoinder affidavit are not admitted, In
reply it is submitted that the higher pay scale sanctioned for junior engineer
was according to the G.O. dated 04-09-2013, but there was no instruction
mentioned in the aforesaid G.O. with regard to the pay scale of foreman of
Industrial Establishment. True/ correct typed version/ photo copy of the
G.O. dated 04-09-2013 is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure
S.C.A.- 3 to this affidavit.

5. That in reply to the contents of para no. 6 of the rejoinder affidavit it is

submitted that the case of the petitioner in relation to the up-gradation of
grade pay has also been sent to the higher authority for consideration and it
is also pertinent to mention here that the post of Junior Engineer is the post
of Govt. Servant, while the foreman is an employee of the Industrial
 Establishment, which is not a government post . Hence it is very much clear
that any Government Order has been issued for the employee of the State,
which cannot be applicable to the employees of Private or any Industrial
Establishment, both the posts fall under the different category and can not be
compared to each other.

6. That in reply to the contents of para no. 7 of the rejoinder affidavit, it is

submitted that as per G.O. dated 08-08-2016 the matter of pay differences
between these employees was also sent to the higher authorities for
consideration, forwarded by the respondent no.2 vide letter dated 22-09-
2016 and it is also relevant to point out here that junior engineer has to
follow the orders of the Assistant Executive Engineer/ Block Development
Officer and he has to follow the Regulations of Irrigation manual, while a
foreman has to obey the direction and orders of the junior engineer. True/
correct typed version/ photo copy of the Regulations of Irrigation Manual is
being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure S.C.A.-4 to this affidavit.

7. That the contents of para nos. 8 & 9 of the rejoinder affidavit has already
been replied in the preceding paras paras of this affidavit.

8. That in reply to the contents of para nos.10, 11 and 12 the rejoinder

affidavit, it is submitted that the respondent no. 2 vide letter dated 22-09-
2016 has already sent the matter to the Finance Department, which is not
true. It is submitted that with regard to the G.O. dated 31-07-2015 it was
mentioned by the petitioner that the above mentioned G.O. was issued
combinedly for junior engineer and foreman. But it is relevant to point out
 here that para no. 1 to 10 of the said G.O. relates with the conditions of the
State employee, while para 11 of the said G.O. relates to the conditions of
industrial establishment and petitioner belongs to the industrial
establishment which is governed by the Rules of Industrial Act-1946 and
the service of junior engineer falls under the irrigations manual and both
are different regulations.
The post of junior engineer is the post of direct recruitment as well as
the promotional post , but the post of foreman is only the promotional post
and junior engineer has to be promoted to Executive Engineer. The post of
foreman has not been promoted further . The post of foreman required the
qualification of I.T.I. while the post of junior engineer required the
qualification of diploma . Hence the Finance department has power to take
the decision with regard to the pay differences between these different
departments and the work culture is also different to each other.

9. That the contents of para nos. 13 & 14 of the rejoinder affidavit has already
been replied in the preceding paras paras of this affidavit.
In view of above the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in the
present writ petition and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

I, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the contents of

para nos. ……….…………..…………… of this affidavit are true to my
personal knowledge, those of para nos. ……….
………………………………. of this affidavit are based on perusal of
records those of para no. ………………………….……. of this affidavit
 are based on legal advice received which all I believe to be true. That no
part of this affidavit is false and nothing material has been concealed.

So help me God (Deponent)

I, Prashant Kumar, Assistant Engineer Irrigation Workshop Roorkee,

do hereby identify the deponent who has produced the records of the case
before me and I am satisfied that he is the same person as alleged.

(Identifier)

Solemnly affirmed before me today this …….. day of the November

2021. at …….. a.m./p.m. by the deponent who has been identified by the
aforesaid person.

I have satisfied myself by examining the deponent that the deponent

has understood the contents of this affidavit, which has been read over and
explained to her by me.

(Oath Commissioner / Notary)

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
------------------------------------
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO .…….. OF 2021
( Under Section 151 of C.P.C.)
IN
SUPPLEMETNARY COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
(On behalf of Respondent No. 2, 3 & 4)
TO
THE
REJOINDER AFFIDAVIT
(filed by the petitioner)
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 755 (S/S) OF 2018
(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
(District- Haridwar)
1-Satish Kumar Sharma,Shri Trilok Chand Sharma R/o Village Jaswawala,
Post Office – Dhanauri, Tehsil & District- Haridwar.
2-Arvind Kumar Rajput, S/o Late Shri Kameshwar Singh, R/o A/3 Workshop
Colony Prem Mandir Road, 11 Civil Line Roorkee, Haridwar, District-
Haridwar.
3-Hetram S/o Late Shri Samanti Singh, R/o RB-26 Ram Bhawan, Satti Mohalla
Roorkee, Tehsil Roorkee, District- Haridwar.
4-Kunwar Singh S/o Late Shri Santa Singh, R/o C-4 Workshop Colony,
Pathanpura Roorkee, Tehsil, Tehsil- Roorkee, District- Haridwar.
5- Mahakpal S/o Late Shri Marod Singh R/o B/7 Workshop Colony Road, 11
Civil Line Roorkee, Haridwar, District- Haridwar.
6-Tejveer Singh S/o Late Shri Bhopal Singh R/o Village Gummawala Majri,
Tehsil & District- Haridwar.

All petitioners posted on the post of Foreman at Irrigation workshop,

Roorkee, Haridwar, District- Haridwar.
......... Petitioners.
 1-State of Uttarakhand, Irrigation Department, through its Additional
Secretary, Secretariat, Dehradun.
2-Chief Engineer & Head of the Department,(Personnel Section ) Irrigation
Department, Yamuna Colony, Dehradun.
3-Superintending Engineer, Tube- Well Division ( Establishment) Roorkee,
Haridwar, District- Haridwar.
4-Executive Engineer, Irrigation Workshop , Roorkee, Haridwar, District-
Haridwar.
……….. Respondents.
To,
The Hon’ble the Chief Justice and his other Hon’ble companion
judges of the aforesaid court.
The humble application of the above named applicant most
respectfully showeth as under.
1. That the facts and circumstances of the case have been disclosed
in the accompanying affidavit.

2. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is most

respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be
pleased to allow this application and reply to the rejoinder
affidavit/ supplementary counter affidavit may kindly be take on
record or otherwise the applicant/respondent no. 2 to 4 shall
suffer irreparable loss and injury.

PRAYER
 It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court
may graciously be pleased to take on record the present
supplementary counter affidavit or else the applicant/respondent
no. 2 to 4 shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

Dated: / /2021 (Indu Sharma)

Brief Holder
High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital