WP(C) 2649/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mr S Dutta, the learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr D Chakrabor ty, the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mrs VL Singh, the learned GA, appearing for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr S Borah, the learne d Standing counsel, GMC. Another allegation of discriminatory treatment is confronting this Court in this writ petition for adjudication. The petitioner was appointed as casual employee in the respondent-corporation on 20.06.1977 and was subsequently appoin ted to the post of LDA cadre in the year 1979. His service in the LDA cadre was confirmed in the year 1983 with effect from 09.08.1993. He was further promote d to the post of UDA in the year 1986 with effect from 01.02.1986. Vide order d ated 28.08.1997 as many as 21 colleagues and contemporaries of the petitioner we re promoted to the next higher cadre of Deputy Cadre by overlooking the case of the petitioner and some of his colleagues. This prompted another group of his c olleagues and contemporaries to approach this Court in Civil Rule 4510/1997 for granting retrospective promotions. However, the Civil Rule was allowed by the o rder dated 02.08.2001 whereafter those petitioners were granted the promotions a s well as back-wages. Some other colleagues and contemporaries of the petitione r who were also denied the promotions filed another wit petitioner before this C ourt in WP(C) No. 8726/2001 and this Court by the order dated 08.03.2004 held th at the case was covered by the decision in Civil Rule No. 4510/1997. These peti tioners were admittedly granted promotions along with back-wages. However, the petitioner was not given promotion on par with those of his colleagues approach ing this Court and the representations filed by him from time to time were also not immediately attended to. Ultimately, by the order dated 08.11.2010, he was promoted to the post of Deputy License Officer with retrospective effect from 2 8.08.1997 as a supernumerary post and was further promoted to Supernumerary post of Superintendent with effect from 09.07.2007 and was posted at Tax Branch, Sou th Zone. No back-wages were, however, granted to him though his pay was notiona lly fixed without loss of seniority. Aggrieved by this, this writ petition has been filed. The writ petition is contested by the respondent authorities by filing t heir affidavit-in-opposition. The contention of the respondent authorities as p rojected in the affidavit-in-opposition are that the petitioner is not entitled to back-wages inasmuch as he had never rendered any service the post of Deputy L icense Officer or Superintendent : he was promoted to this post only by creating a supernumerary post. Having not rendered any service at all, the question of payment of back-wages does not arise. According to the respondent authorities, on the facts and circumstances of the case obtaining in this case, the question of discriminatory treatment cannot and does not arise. The contention of the pe titioner that he has been superseded has no legs to stand. As his seniority has been dulyprotected, submits by the respondent authorities, he has no legitimate grievance to make against the denial of back-wages to him . These are the sum and substance of the respondent authorities. Mr Dutta, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was admittedly not rendering the post of Deputy License Officer or t he post of Superintendent when he was promoted to these posts, but that cannot b e a ground for denying him of the back-wages when his colleagues and contemporar ies, who were also not rendered any services to the posts in which they were pro moted had been paid their back-wages. According to the learned senior counsel, the submission of Mr Bora, the learned Standing counsel to the effect that as th e petitioner was promoted against supernumerary posts, to which he never rendere d any service, he could not be given back-wages, flies in the face of the order dated 30.04.2009 promoting one Shymal Bhattacharjee, Head Cashier, on a supernum erary post of Superintendent by granting him back-wages : like cases should be t reated alike. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no rational explanation could be shown by the respondent authorities to differen tiate the case of the petitioner from the case of other employees like Shyamal B hattacharjee. I have pointedly asked the learned Standing counsel to show him o ne rational justification to differentiate the case of the petitioner from the c ase of the colleagues who were granted back-wages despite having not rendered an y services to the posts to which they were promoted, but he is unable to do so. I am not at all impressed by the justification sought to be projected by the learned Standing counsel for treating the petitioner discriminatory in the matter of granting back-wages when his colleagues and contemporaries who are sim ilarly situated were granted their backwages. In the view that I have taken, th e impugned decision of the respondent authorities in denying back-wages to the p etitioner cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be interfered with by this Court. For what has been stated in the foregoing, this writ petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 8.11.2010 (Annexure H) to the writ petition, in as far as it denies the back-wages to the petitioner in the post of Deputy License Off icer and the post of Superintendent is hereby quashed. The respondent authoriti es are directed to pay the back-wages of the petitioner i.e. for supernumerary p ost of Deputy License Officer with effect from 28.08.1997 and in the supernumera ry post of Superintendent with effect from 09.07.2007 within the period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The parties are however, direct ed to bear their respective costs.