IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1130 of 2010 Raghubir Singh Goswami ….Petitioner. Versus Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, Haridwar and another …Respondents. Sri Pankaj Miglani, Advocate preset for the petitioner. Sri Vipul Sharma, Advocate present for respondent no. 1. Sri Navneet Kaushik, Advocate present for respondent no. 2. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Sri Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent no. 1 and Sri Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for respondent no. 2. The petitioner is a Junior Assistant in Indian Institute of Technology. He was appointed as a typist on 29.9.1979. Respondent no. 2 Mr. D.M. Sharma was also appointed as a typist though later than the petitioner on 11.1.1980. Subsequently, in the year 1995 respondent no. 2 though junior to the present petitioner was promoted to the next higher post ignoring the case of the petitioner. Though belatedly, the petitioner challenged this promotion before a statutory grievance redressal committee of the Institute known as “Institute Grievance Redressal Committee”. The Institute Grievance Redressal Committee after considering the case of the petitioner in detail passed an order in some detail on 14.2.2008, in favour of the petitioner which is annexure no. 5 to the writ petition whereby certain benefits were granted to the petitioner. The Institute Grievance Redressal Committee admitted the lapses on part of the Institute such as not considering the case of the petitioner but since it was too late in the day and looking at the practical difficulties certain benefits were given to the petitioner and others were denied to him and rightly so since the challenge was made by the petitioner belatedly. The operative portion of the order of the Institute Grievance Redressal Committee reads as follows :- 2 “In order to rectify the mistake of past, the Committee opined that although it will not be fair to undo this promotion after a gap of 12/7 years and recover the amount from Sri D.M. Sharma, however, to compensate the immediate loss of others, related to their pay and group, the Institute Grievance Committee recommends the following :- 1. De-facto promotions to other three incumbents viz. Sri R.S. Goswami, Sri A.A. Ansari, & Sri N.K. Verma w.e.f. 1.7.2001. 2. Since, the financial implication even on the account of extending this benefit from the date as shown at point 1 above, comes out to be around Rs. 55,802/- each i.e. 3 x 55,802 = Rs. 1,67,406 (Annexure-I), therefore, the Committee further recommends that pay of these senior employees should be fixed after taking into account of their de- facto promotion, with notional financial benefits from 1.6.2002 (that is the date of availability of three vacancies due to superannuation of three employees of the erstwhile UOR between 1.7.2001 to 20.9.2001, but vacating at the of the academic session on 1.7.2002 as per the UOR norms) but without any change in their earlier promotions to avoid any cascading effects on other cases. 3. No arrear on account of notional benefit w.e.f. 1.7.02 has been proposed except the correction of their seniority, pay and group of post from the date of approval on these recommendations. This is because in case the right seniority, if had been taken into account since beginning, then only the senior most employee might have qualified for seniority based promotion against the then only one available vacancy, however, now to rectify that mistake of past, the three employees, senior to Sri D.M. Sharma are recommended for de facto promotion (notional) w.e.f. 1.7.2002 as senior Assistants.” It may be necessary to mention at this juncture that the Institute Grievance Redressal Committee consists of very high office bearers of the Committee such as the Chairman, three professors of the Institute, the Registrar, the Deputy Registrar and the Assistant Registrar. It was a legitimate expectation of the petitioner that since an order has been passed by a high body such as Institute Grievance Redressal Committee as far back as on 14.2.2008, it was liable to be implemented by the Institute and by the “powers that be”, in the Institute. This 3 order was sent for approval to the Board of Governors of the Institute. The Board of Governors instead of approving the detail recommendations of the Institute Grievance redressal Committee rejected it in a telegraphic order stating that these recommendations of the Institute Grievance Redressal Committee cannot be adhered to as there are practical difficulties and change in the recruitment rules. This order of the Board of Governors of the Institute is not sustainable on the grounds inasmuch no reasons have been assigned and the recommendations of the Institute Grievance Redressal Committee have been rejected arbitrarily. The Institute Grievance Redressal Committee which is a body of very high officials of the Institute itself while considering all the aspects had made limited recommendations in favour of the petitioner considering all the relevant difficulties at the relevant point of time and therefore they had not granted the promotion as was sought by the petitioner and only a notional promotion was given to him. The implications of the notional promotion are too evident to be explained here. Sufficient would it be to state that nobody not even respondent no. 2 was aggrieved by this notional promotion given to the petitioner. Therefore, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner as well as the recommendations of the Institute Grievance Redressal Committee by the Board of Governors of the Institute by a telegraphic order is not sustainable. Order dated 13.12.2008 (Annexure No. 8) is hereby set aside. Writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to implement the order of the Grievance Redressal Committee dated 14.2.2008 (Annexure no. 5 to the writ petition) forthwith. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 7.6.2011 Avneet