IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 33 of 2007 Union of India & others. .……… Appellants Versus Rudra Singh Kunwar. .………. Respondent Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Addl. Standing Counsel (Central Govt.) for the appellants. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manoj Sah, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) Respondent-Rudra Singh Kunwar was issued an appointment order dated 15.06.1982, appointing him against the post of Postal Assistant. In furtherance of the aforesaid appointment order dated 15.06.1982, the respondent submitted his joining report on 22.06.1982, along with all the required documents. Despite the same, he was not permitted to join. Instead, he received a letter on 07.05.1983, which enclosed all the documents which had been submitted by the respondent on 22.06.1982. In response to enquiries made by him, he was informed through a communication dated 13.05.1983, that an inquiry was being conducted in respect of the selection process (through which he had been selected) by the Post Master General, UP Circle, and as such, he would be permitted to assume his duties as Postal Assistant only on the completion of the same. 2. Since the respondent was not communicated any final decision on the alleged pending inquiry, he filed Writ Petition No. 13541 of 1984 in the High Court at Allahabad. During the course of the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, a direction was issued to the respondents therein to show cause why, as an interim measure, the respondent herein should not be appointed against the post of Steno Typist Assistant. 3. Consequent upon the issuance of the aforesaid show cause notice, the respondent was issued a letter dated 25.08.1986, requiring him to resume his training for appointment against the post of Postal Assistant. After the completion of the aforesaid training, the respondent was actually posted as 2 Postal Assistant on 25.08.1986. The emoluments payable to the respondent were determined on the basis of the fact, that he assumed the duties of the post of Postal Assistant w.e.f. 25.08.1986. 4. The fixation of the emoluments of the respondent herein, based on the fact that he had joined his service on 25.08.1986, was assailed by him by approaching this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 368 of 2004. Before this Court, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent herein was, that his name was depicted in the seniority list dated 31.07.2001 at serial No. 54, whereas, the names of Pushkar Singh Khati and Ramadhar Ram had been depicted at serial Nos. 59 & 60 respectively in the said seniority list. The aforesaid Pushkar Singh Khati and Ramadhar Ram were placed in the higher pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000/-. The claim of the petitioner therefore was, that he should be placed in the same higher pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000/-, with effect from the date his juniors, namely Pushkar Singh Khati and Ramadhar Ram, were placed in the aforesaid pay- scale. The instant contention made at the hands of the petitioner was accepted by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide its order dated 29.08.2006, wherein this Court directed the appellants herein to consider the claim of the petitioner (respondent herein) for payment of salary in the higher pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000/-, with effect from the date the same was released to his juniors, namely Pushkar Singh Khati and Ramadhar Ram. 5. The order dated 29.08.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge, while disposing of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 368 of 2004, has been assailed by the Union of India through the instant Special Appeal. 6. The solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, during the course of hearing of the instant Special Appeal was, that the service of the respondent, for purposes of fixation of pay in the higher pay-scale, has to be determined with reference to the date of his joining against the post of Postal Assistant. In this respect, it is pointed out, that the respondent factually joined against the post of Postal Assistant on 25.08.1986, whereas his juniors, namely Pushkar Singh Khati and Ramadhar Ram, had assumed their duties as Postal Assistants immediately on their selection to the said post. 3 7. We have considered the solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, as has been noticed in the foregoing paragraph. The solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, cannot be accepted for two reasons. Firstly, the respondent had submitted his joining report on 22.06.1982. He was not allowed to join on the aforesaid date on account of some vigilance inquiry, which was pending before the Post Master General, UP Circle, in respect of the selection process, through which the respondent had been selected. It is, therefore, apparent, that the action of the appellants in not allowing the respondent to join on 22.06.1982, when he submitted his joining report, was not for any fault at the hands of the respondent. Secondly, the respondent has already been granted the benefit of his selection, as also the position of his merit in the said selection process, inasmuch as, in the seniority list issued on 31.07.2001, his name was placed above Pushkar Singh Khati and Ramadhar Ram. If he had to be deprived of the benefit of his selection, as also the position of his merit in the said selection process, based on the vigilance inquiry pending before the Post Master General, UP Circle, he would not have been given seniority above the afore-stated Pushkar Singh Khati and Ramadhar Ram. The appellants, themselves unilaterally having placed the respondent above the aforesaid Pushkar Singh Khati and Ramadhar Ram in the seniority list dated 31.07.2001, are estopped in law from depriving him of any benefit, which has been granted to those depicted as his juniors in the same seniority list. For the aforesaid two reasons, we are satisfied, that the solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants before us is devoid of any merit and deserves to be declined. Ordered accordingly. 8. In view of the above, we find no merit in the instant Special Appeal and the same is accordingly hereby dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 09.03.2010 09.03.2010 G