IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 4 of 2009 Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. .……… Petitioner Versus S.K. Mittal. .………. Respondent Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A. Rab, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) The respondent attained the age of superannuation on 30.09.2002. After he had retired from service, a charge-sheet dated 17.07.2004 was served upon him by the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. The respondent contested the jurisdiction of the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. to hold any departmental inquiry against him, by asserting that he was an employee of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. On the culmination of the departmental inquiry held against him, the respondent was inflicted with the punishment of stoppage of pension and other retiral benefits. Dissatisfied with the orders passed by the petitioner against the respondent, the respondent preferred Claim Petition No. 105 of 2007 before the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand. By an order dated 11.11.2008, the Public Services Tribunal set aside the action of the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. in issuing a charge-sheet to the respondent, as also in holding a departmental inquiry against him. Resultantly, the order passed by the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., in implementing the impugned order, namely, in not paying the respondent pension and other retiral benefits, came to be set aside. This determination was rendered by the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand, on the basis of its conclusion, that the respondent was not an employee of the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., but was an employee of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. 2. The order dated 11.11.2008, passed by the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand, in accepting Claim Petition No. 105 of 2007 filed by the 2 respondent, has been assailed at the hands of the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. before this Court. 3. As a matter of fact, it is difficult to comprehend and understand, why the instant writ petition has been filed. Insofar as the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. is concerned, for all intents and purposes, the impugned order passed by the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand, must be deemed to lead to the conclusion, that the respondent is not an employee of the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., but is an employee of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. In the aforesaid view of the matter, in any case, even though the claim petition filed by the respondent has been allowed, the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. is not required to pay either pension or any other retiral benefits to the respondent. 4. Stated in other words, whether the instant writ petition is allowed or dismissed, the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. would be similarly placed insofar as its liability is concerned. If the order passed by the Tribunal is approved and the respondent is treated as an employee of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., still the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. will not have to pay either pension or any other retiral benefits to the respondent. On the contrary, if the instant writ petition is allowed and the impugned order revives, still the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. would not have to pay either pension or any other retiral benefits to the respondent. Thus, we are of the view that the instant writ petition was filed without considering the effect of the impugned order. 5. We, therefore hereby, dispose of the instant writ petition by holding, that the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., who has been held to be not the employer of the respondent, as per the respondent’s own assertion, shall not be liable to pay either pension or any other retiral benefits to the respondent. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 23.03.2010 23.03.2010 G