IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 212 of 2007 Bakhtawar Singh Chauhan ….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal and others …Respondents. Sri Lalit Kumar, Advocate present for the petitioner. Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Sri Lalit Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner as well as Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner states that he is an employee of the State of Uttarakhand. He is working since 1973 and presently working in the “Integrated Child Development Services” which comes under the Department of Women Empowerment and Child Development, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, according to the petitioner. The first prayer of the petitioner before this Court is that he had worked on a higher post i.e. on the post of Office Superintendent in an officiating capacity from 30.8.1990 to 28.3.1996 and therefore he may be given the salary and other related benefits for the said post. It is too late in the day to raise an issue pertaining to the year 1990-96, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 1449 (S/S) of 2002 in which he had not made the prayer which is presently being made in the writ petition. Hence it is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. The earlier writ petition of the petitioner was disposed of in view of the Government Order dated 3.6.2006 placed before the learned Single Judge where the Government had stated its position that it is restructuring the posts in the Department. The petition was disposed of in view of the assurance given in the said Government Order dated 3.6.2006, when the case of the petitioner was liable to be considered. The petitioner now 2 states that after the restructuring of the posts, his chances for promotion have become nil and this is in violation of proviso to Section 74 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act inasmuch as his service condition cannot be changed to his disadvantage (except with the prior approval of the Central Government). This has not been done. The petitioner has made the following prayers :- “(I) to issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of ‘Certiorari’ to summon the order dated 24.11.2001 passed by Respondent No. 1 and quash the same by declaring it illegal and ultra vires of Section 74 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act 2000. (II) to issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding Respondents 4 and 5 jointly and severally to pay the salary and other related benefits to the petitioner for the post of ‘Office Superintendent’ for the period from 30.8.1990 to 28.3.1996 during which he performed the duty of the said post. (III) to issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding Respondent No. 1 to re- structure the department of ICDS within a peremptory time period to be fixed by the Hon’ble Court in its wisdom, in such a manner that the promotional prospects of the petitioner are maintained at par with the 1992 Rules and 1996 Rules. (IV) to issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding Respondents No. 1 and 5 jointly and severally to grant the rank of Office Superintendent (now re-designated as Administrative Officer Grade II) to the petitioner with all consequential benefits with effect from 9.7.1993. (V) to issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding Respondents No. 1 and 5 jointly and severally to grant the rank of Section Officer to the petitioner with all consequential benefits with effect from 9.7.2000. (VI) to issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding Respondent No. 1 to grant the rank of Assistant Director/Additional Project Manager/Programme Officer to the petitioner on 9.7.2007 to which he would become eligible and entitled on that date. (VII) to award the cost of this petition to the petitioner as against the respondents, and to grant any other relief which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit, proper and equitable on the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3 Since there is already a Government Order dated 3.6.2006 passed by the State of Uttarakhand in view of which earlier writ petition was disposed of and reference of which has already been made above, it is a legitimate expectation of the petitioner that the restructuring be done so that the earlier avenues available to him for promotion remain. It is made clear that merely if the chances of promotion are diminished, it would not be a change in service condition but in the present case where all the chances of promotion have gone it is definitely a violation of provision of law. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the State Authorities to make necessary restructuring as contemplated in the Government Order dated 3.6.2006 and dispose of the representation of the petitioner regarding his grievance of future promotion. With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 8.6.2011 Avneet