IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1748 of 2007 Sri Inam Ashraf and others ...Petitioners Versus Principal Secretary Uttaranchal Transport Corporation Dehradun and others …Respondents. Present : Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel (State of Uttarakhand) for respondent no. 1. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Indu Sharma, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for respondent no. 4. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate for respondent no. 5. Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, CJ Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) In the writ petition, petitioners are challenging Sub- clauses (3), (4) and (5) of Clause 5 of the Scheme made under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, relating to reorganization of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, on the ground of discrimination. It is being contended that though petitioners were appointed in one region or zone or depot, they were transferred therefrom to other regions or zones or depots. It is also being contended that while they were appointed in a region or zone or depot, which is now part of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, but they, while serving the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, were transferred to a region or zone or depot which is now part of Uttarakhand State Transport Corporation. They have contended that while 2 for being thus transferred, they are stuck in the region or zone or depot to which they were transferred immediately before the Scheme was made and published, people serving Headquarters and Headquarter supported central units of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation have been given an option to decide which of the Corporations they would join, while no such option has been given to the petitioners and that appears to be the ground of discrimination highlighted in the body of the petition. A plain and simple reading of sub-clauses (3), (4) and (5) of Clause 5 of the said Scheme would allay the fear set in mind of the petitioners, for which they have approached this Court. Sub-clause (3) of Clause 5 does not say that those who are serving in a region or zone or depot at the time the Scheme is made will remain fixed to the said region, zone or depot; instead it says that people who were appointed by Appointing Authorities of a region or zone or depot, for the purpose of being allocated in between the two State Transport Corporations, shall remain stuck to such region or zone or depot. Since the Headquarters of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Headquarter supported central units were all located in the State of Uttar Pradesh, people working there have been given an option to choose between the Corporations. In other words, the Scheme made it clear that people, who were appointed in a region or zone or depot will be treated to be continuing to be part of that region or zone or depot, but since the Headquarters and Headquarter supported central units are to be divided in between two Corporations, people working there would be entitled to choose which of the Corporations they want to opt. In the circumstances, we find no discrimination at all. 3 In the event, Appointing Authorities of the petitioners were officers of a region or zone or depot located in the territory falling under the territory allocated to the State Road Transport Corporation of Uttar Pradesh, it is hoped and expected that in view of the mandate contained in the said Scheme, they shall be appropriately taken to such region or zone or depot. Writ petition is thus disposed of. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 9.5.2011 Avneet