IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 675 of 2005 (S/S) Shiv Lal Mehto and another. ……Petitioners. Versus Uttaranchal Road Transport Corporation and others. …Respondents. Present:- Mr. Gopal Narain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jagdish Bisht, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent no. 3. Ms. Anjali Bhargawa, Standing Counsel (Central Government) for respondent no. 5. Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J, (Oral) No ground, far or less any reasonable ground has been made out in the application for restoration seeking recall of the order of dismissal passed for non- prosecution, inasmuch as, the only ground is engagement of the lawyer engaged by the petitioners at the relevant time in a different court. When engagement of a lawyer in a different court is not a ground for adjournment and the same is barred by law, the same cannot be a ground for non appearance. However, only on the principle that for the latches on the part of an advocate, the client shall not suffer, we are reluctantly allowing the application for restoration (MCC No. 116 of 2011). With the consent of the parties, we have heard the writ petition on its merits. Uttar Pradesh State Transport Corporation is one of the Corporations owned by the State of Uttar Pradesh and dealt with by Section 67 of U.P. Re-organisation Act, 2 2000. Steps were taken to bifurcate the said Corporation into two. Before bifurcation in fact took place, Uttar Pradesh State Transport Corporation issued a notice to its employees indicating that there is a possibility of establishment of Uttarakhand State Transport Corporation in the near future and that the employees, who are interested to join the proposed Uttarakhand State Transport Corporation, shall be entitled to opt for the same or the employees may opt to continue to remain as employees of Uttar Pradesh State Transport Corporation. Petitioners opted to remain as employees of Uttar Pradesh State Transport Corporation. Subsequent thereto, the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 67 of the Act, divided Uttar Pradesh State Transport Corporation and by reasons thereof, Uttarakhand State Transport Corporation came into being. While the Central Government exercised such powers, it provided that options are to be invited from the employees. According to the petitioners subsequent to the said order of the Central Government, no option has been invited. In the meantime, the petitioners on the basis of option exercised prior to coming into existence Uttarakhand State Transport Corporation continued to work in Uttar Pradesh Transport Corporation. They have approached this Court with the grievance that the previous invitation for option was an administrative decision and had no statutory force, whereas options required to be sought for in terms of the directions issued by the Central Government having a statutory flavour has not been invited and as such the petitioners cannot be asked to continue to work with Uttar Pradesh State Transport Corporation, they must be given a further option. The submission has no substance at all. 3 Petitioners were employees of Uttar Pradesh State Transport Corporation. They are still the employees of Uttar Pradesh State Transport Corporation. When they were told that there is a possibility of formation of Uttarakhand State Transport Corporation, they did not opt to become employees of Uttarakhand State Transport Corporation. They wanted to remain employees of Uttar Pradesh State Transport Corporation. In law, without the consent of an employee, his employer cannot be altered. Petitioners were employees of Uttar Pradesh State Transport Corporation, accordingly per force, petitioners could not be made employees of Uttarakhand State Transport Corporation, without however taking recourse to making a legislation to that effect. No such legislation has been made. Section 67 does not authorise the same to be achieved. In the circumstances, what was permissible for the Central Government was only to obtain consent of those employees of the Uttar Pradesh State Transport Corporation willing to serve Uttarakhand State Transport Corporation, to agree to serve the same. That was the reason why the Central Government had directed obtaining of option. The object thereof having already been achieved, for not taking a similar step once again, it cannot be said that the petitioners have been affected in any manner whatsoever. The writ petition is utterly meritless and the same is dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 07.3.2011 Rathour