Reserved Judgment IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.258 of 2004 (S/S) Parmanand Kandpal …Petitioner Versus Uttaranchal Power Corporation & two others ...Respondents Mr. Vinod Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Advocate for the respondents. Dated: 30.04.2009 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner was appointed by the order of respondent no.3 as class IV employee on 07.09.1985 and was posted at Electricity Distribution Division, Ranikhet. He continued to work till 30.10.1991 when his services were terminated without giving any notice. The order dated 30.10.1991 was challenged by the petitioner before Labour Court in Adjudication Case No.117/92.The Labour Court decided 2 the case on 25.10.1997 directing the respondents to give employment to the petitioner on priority basis whenever the vacancies arise.. The order passed by the Labour Court was never challenged before the High Court and same attained finality. When the petitioner was not offered appointment, the petitioner moved several representations before the respondents and also approached personally but no heed was paid to his request. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition no.7271 (S/S) of 2001 before this Court and same was decided on 07.09.2002 with direction to the respondents to consider representation of the petitioner by speaking order. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer, Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., Almora passed an order on 01.11.2002 by which the petitioner’s representation was rejected by telling the petitioner that whenever vacancies will arise, the petitioner should submit his application form by completing all formalities so that he will be given preference. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.11.2002 the petitioner filed present writ petition for quashing of the same and also for direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that 33 identically situated employees, who were also terminated on 30.10.1991, have been reinstated by the respondents but petitioner has not been taken back in service. According to learned counsel for the petitioner this action of respondents is discriminatory and illegal. He further argued that the 3 representation of the petitioner has been decided mechanically, same is not a reasoned order and deserves to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, submitted that the representation of the petitioner has been decided by the respondent no.3 and in that order itself it is mentioned that whenever vacancies will be advertised in the department the petitioner will be given preference. Learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the fact that 33 identically situated terminated employees were reinstated by the department in service and are working in the respondents’ department. Thus, it is clear that the respondents have taken different stand in the matter of the petitioner which they cannot take. In the order dated 01.11.2002 the respondent no.3 also took stand that power of appointment does not lie with Division Level and Regional Level but rejected the representation of the petitioner. In fact, the respondent no.3 acted illegally in rejecting the representation of the petitioner when he was not competent to consider the representation of the petitioner. The order dated 01.11.2002 can also not be said a reasoned order. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 01.11.2002 passed by respondent no.3 is quashed. Respondent no.1-Managing Director/Chairman of Uttarakhand Power Corporation is directed to decide the 4 representation of the petitioner afresh within a period of two months by speaking order after considering all relevant facts including the ground of parity. 6. No order as to costs. (V.K.Bist, J.) 30.04.2009 Arti 5