IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 277 of 2009 Deep Chandra Verma …..…… Appellant Versus State of Uttar Pradesh (Now Uttarakhand) and two others ……… Respondents Coram:- Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Present: Mr. A.S. Rawat, Advocate with Mr. L.M. Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Advocate for the respondents. Date of Decision: 15.03.2010 J.S. Khehar, C.J. (Oral) The appellant applied for appointment against the post of Junior Clerk. In the selection process, 80 names forwarded by the Employment Exchange were considered. The selection process comprised of a written test followed by a viva voce examination. The name of the appellant was depicted as one of the selected candidates, and in fact an offer of appointment was issued to him. He was, however, not permitted to assume his duties on account of the fact that through a subsequent Government Order dated 20.11.1987, qualifications for the post of Junior Clerk were revised. The action of the respondents, in not allowing the appellant to join, was assailed by the appellant by filing Writ Petition No. 130 of 1988 in the High Court at Allahabad before its Lucknow Bench. On the reorganization of the composite State of Uttar Pradesh, the aforesaid writ petition was transferred to this Court. In this Court, it was re-numbered as Writ Petition (S/S) No.848 of 2009. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court, vide an order dated 25.11.2009. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge would reveal, that this Court arrived at the conclusion that the appellant was unjustifiably denied the right to assume his duties against the post of Junior Clerk. Be that as it may, rather than requiring the respondents to allow the appellant to assume his duties and 2 to grant him all consequential benefits, this Court keeping in view the fact, that the selection process had commenced in the year 1986, and that the appellant remained out of employment till the disposal of writ petition in the year 2009 moulded the relief by allowing the appellant compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac). 2. During the course of hearing before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant categorically asserted, that he was not assailing the validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25.11.2009, disposing of Writ Petition (S/S) No.848 of 2009. It is the pointed assertion of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the compensation of Rs. 1 lac awarded to the appellant was trivial in the facts and circumstances of this case, and that, a much higher compensation ought to have been awarded to him. In order to substantiate his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision rendered in Management of Aurofood Private Limited versus S. Rajulu, (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 608. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the following observations recorded in the aforesaid judgment:- “11. We also find that the workman has been out of employment since the year 1981 and despite succeeding before the Single Bench of the High Court on 9.2.2001 he has not yet been reinstated in service because of the interim order passed in this litigation. We had accordingly and at the very outset, suggested to Mr. Sundaravardan that on account of the situation as it now existed, it would, perhaps, be appropriate that the respondent be given a compensation package rather than an order of reinstatement. The learned counsel stated that the management was willing to give no more than Rs. 5,00,000 towards that package. The respondent, on the other hand, who was present in the Court, insisted that he was not interested in the compensation and would prefer that the orders of the High Court be implemented in letter and spirit. 12. We are of the opinion that consequent upon the bitter relations between the parties and as even the High Court has found the charges proved though “trivial” and the fact that the respondent has not been on duty with the appellant management since the year 1981, it would be inappropriate to foist a cantankerous and abrasive workman on it. We accordingly dismiss the appeal but direct that instead of reinstatement the respondent would be entitled to 3 the payment of Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation as full and final settlement with respect to his entire claim.” 3. Based on the observations recorded by the Apex Court, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that compensation of the nature awarded by the Supreme Court in the judgment relied upon should have been awarded to the appellant herein as well. This assertion is also based on the fact, that if the appellant had been inducted in the service, he would still have 9 years before attaining the age of superannuation. 4. We have considered the solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the concerned party was a private company, which unilaterally offered to pay a compensation of Rs. 5 lac. In so far as the facts and circumstances of this case are concerned, herein the selection process was conducted by the State for appointment to the post of Junior Clerk, no such offer has been made by the State Government to pay compensation of the quantum which is sought to be claimed by the appellant herein. The amount of compensation to be awarded is based on the subjective satisfaction of the Court. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not possible for us to infer that the subjective satisfaction exercised by the learned Single Judge was either arbitrary or otherwise unsustainable in law. It can not also be overlooked, that the appellant must have engaged himself effectively during this period, so as to sustain himself and other members of his family. 5. In view of the above, we find no merit in the instant special appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 15.03.2010 P.Singh