1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 528 of 2001(S/S) (Old no. 33638/2000) Basudev Chamoli …………… Petitioner Versus President and Chief Managing Director,Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd. And others. ………… Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U.K.Uniyal, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Shobhit Sahariya, the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant the post of Junior Supervisor (S-I) w.e.f. 1.7.1997 with all consequential benefits. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner was appointed as a class IV employee in the Irrigation Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 1st December 1972. In the year 1982, he was promoted as a Clerk and on 1.11.1989 he was sent on deputation in the same capacity in Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the THDC”). While on deputation, the respondents issued an offer letter dated 22.4.1997 for absorption of his services in the THDC subject to concurrence/acceptance of the petitioner’s resignation by the parent department i.e. the Irrigation Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The respondents further stated that upon acceptance of the petitioner’s resignation from his parent department, the petitioner would be placed as 2 Assistant Grade-II (W-6) w.e.f. 1st July, 1994 and as Assistant Grade –I(W-7) w.e.f. 2nd July, 1994. This offer was accepted by the petitioner and consent was given on 6th June, 1997. It has also been stated that the Irrigation Department also accepted the petitioner’s resignation letter and accordingly, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade –2 w.e.f. 1st July, 1994 and Assistant Grade-1 w.e.f. 2nd July, 1994. The matter does not end here. The petitioner alleged that similarly situated persons, who were given similar offer letters and who had accepted the said offer and were given the grade of Assistant Grade-2 and Assistant Grade-1 w.e.f.1st July, 1994 and 2nd July, 1994,subsequently,their offer was revised and the said persons were given promotion as Junior Supervisor (S-1) w.e.f. 1.7.1997. The petitioner, therefore, contended that similar treatment should be given to the petitioner and, the respondents, by denying him the post of Junior Supervisor (S-1) w.e.f. 1.7.1997, has adopted a policy of discrimination. The learned counsel for the petitioner, further submitted that these similarly situated persons were given the post of Junior Supervisor on account of the fact that they were getting the scale of Rs.1200-2040/- on 2nd April, 1997 and that the petitioner was also entitled for that selection grade of Rs.1200-2040/- w.e.f. 7.9.1996, but was not given to him and consequently, the petitioner was again discriminated. The respondents have denied the claim of the petitioner and contended that the petitioner has not been discriminated nor the respondents have taken any arbitrary decisions. The respondents contended that the names of three persons alleged by the petitioner, who were alleged to be similarly situated, was incorrect, inasmuch as, these persons were given the post of Junior Supervisor, since they had already rendered 16 years of service and were also senior to the petitioner and consequently, the petitioner was not 3 entitled for such similar treatment. The respondents in paragraph 6 of their counter affidavit have categorically stated that those persons, who had completed 16 years of service before 1st July, 1996 as Junior Clerk in the parent department were placed in S-1 Grade and that the petitioner had not completed 16 years in the clerical grade in the parent department and, consequently, the petitioner was not entitled for absorption/promotion as Junior Supervisor. The averments contained in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit has not been controverted by the petitioner. In paragraph no.8 of the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has only reiterated that the petitioner was entitled for the Grade of Rs.1200-2040/- and that the crucial fact for being promoted or being absorbed as Junior Supervisor was that the incumbent should be placed in the grade of Rs.1200-2040/-. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the opinion that there has been no discrimination nor the respondents have acted arbitrary in denying the relief claimed by the petitioner. From a perusal of the material that has been brought on record, it is clear that the offer, which was given by the respondents was duly accepted and that the petitioner was placed as Assistant Grade –2 and Assistant Grade-1, in pursuance of the offer letter. To that extent, the offer given by the respondents was complied with. The fact that the allegations that similarly situated persons were placed as Junior Supervisor and the petitioner is also liable to be given similar treatment is incorrect, inasmuch as the petitioner has nowhere denied that these persons were senior to him coupled with the fact that they have completed 16 years of clerical service in the parent department as on 1st July, 1996, whereas the petitioner had not completed 16 years of service. This fact has not been denied by the petitioner and consequently, the court is of the opinion that the claim of similar treatment cannot be 4 accepted. Further, the petitioner itself states that the petitioner was entitled to the Grade of Rs.1200-2040/-, but was not given. Such demand is not an issue before this court. Consequently, the mere fact that the entitlement of the petitioner on the Grade of Rs.1200-2040/- was not given by the respondents, cannot be considered in this litigation. In the light of the aforesaid, this court does not find anything to indicate that the petitioner has been discriminated. In view of the aforesaid, the claim of the petitioner for the post of Junior Supervisor w.e.f. 1.7.1997 with all consequential benefits fails. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated: 7.4.2010 Nishant