1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.129/2010 Sampoorna Nand Sharma vs Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 11.1.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr.RS Saluja, for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Tradesman-A, however, according to him, he should have been appointed on the post of Trademan-B as per his qualification. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1995 and according to him he submitted representation. According to the petitioner in the case of some of the employees, who were given appointment on the post of Tradesman-A, on their representation, they have been given appointment on the post of Tradesman-B, which is apparent from Annexs. 7 to 10 placed on record. It is submitted that the petitioner's case has been considered by the respondents in pursuance of the directions issued by this court in petitioner's writ petition no.9976/2008 dated 18.12.2009 and petitioner's contention has been rejected only on the ground that after considering of the pros and 2 cons, it would not be in the interest of NPCIL to reopen the cases since this would have much more wider repercussions keeping in view the norms of TC&TSC being allowed by NPCIL. The best course to settle the long pending grievance would be to look forward and consider them suitably for their future promotions. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that some of the employees have been re-designated on the post of Scientific Assistant “B” w.e.f. the date mentioned against them which runs from the year 1983 to 1992 and those orders were passed on 17th April, 2002. A bare perusal of the order dated 17th April, 2002 clearly indicates that it is nothing but a re-designation of the persons and not giving some benefit as claimed by the petitioner of putting petitioner from Tradesman-A to Tradesman-B. In view of the above reasons, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the respondents dated 26th Sept., 2009 (Annex.16) and, therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. cpgoyal/-