IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1663of 2006 (S/S) Smt. Deepa Negi W/o Shri B.S. Negi ……Petitioner Versus State and others …….Respondents Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for respondents No. 1 to 5. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Shobhit Saharia, counsel for respondent No. 6. Dated:-22-09-2010 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “1. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on Class III post instead of a Class IV within a fixed reasonable time. 2. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the petitioner. 3. To award the cost of present writ petition in favour of the petitioner.” According to the petitioner, the brief facts, as stated in the writ petition are that she was serving in M/s Kumaun Television Ltd. Bhimtal, as a Class III employee on the post of Assembler since 1988. Thereafter, vide notification dated 30.12.1995, Government took a policy decision to wind up Kumaun Television Ltd. as well as to pay arrears of salary to its employees and also decided that retrenched employees of M/s Kumaun Television Ltd., Bhimtal, District Nainital, would be absorbed in the Kumaun Division itself in different Government Departments, Corporations etc. by granting age relaxation for appointment. 2 It is further stated in the writ petition that instead of giving appointment in Class III post, the petitioner was offered appointment in Class IV post in Education Department vide order dated 01.05.1998 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). The grievance of the petitioner is that as per Clause IV of Government Order dated 30.12.1995 (annexure-3 to the writ petition), she was entitled to get appointment in Class III post but she was given appointment in Class IV post. Hence this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that other similarly situated employees have been given appointment in Class III post in other departments. He further contended that controversy being raised by the petitioner in the present petition has already been decided by this Hon’ble Court in writ petition No. 1321 (S/S) of 2003, Km. Shashi Thapa and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 09.05.2006. The operative portion of the order dated 09.05.2006, is being reproduced below:- “In view of the above discussion, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No. 3 and 6 to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment on Class III posts in view of the fact that juniors to the petitioners have been provided appointment in Class III posts, at the earliest preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.” Pursuant to the above order dated 09.05.2006, the petitioners of the above writ petition No. 1321 (S/S) of 2003, were appointed in Class III post vide order dated 18.07.2006. The petitioner of the present writ petition is also a similarly situated employee. In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, it has been stated in para-7 that the petitioner was not entitled for absorption in view of Government Order dated 26.02.1996, wherein it is mentioned that persons, who were employed in Corporation before 01.10.1986, shall only be entitled for absorption and the petitioner was appointed in the year 1988. Here it is made clear that vide G.O. dated 30.12.1995, no such condition, as mentioned in Government Order dated 26.02.1996, was imposed for absorption. 3 Since the petitioner was appointed in view of Government Order dated 30.12.1995, therefore, the respondents are barred to adopt a different view under principle of estoppel of acquiescence. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of in terms of judgment and order, passed by this Court in writ petition No. 1321 (S/S) of 2003 on 09.05.2006. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No. 1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in Class III post in view of the fact that juniors to the petitioners have been provided appointment in Class III post, at the earliest preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With the above direction, writ petition stands disposed of. (B.S.Verma, J.) 22-09-2010 S