U.V. Uttamchandani vs University Of Delhi
2004 Latest Caselaw 140 Del

JUDGMENT

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Petitioner prays that a writ be issued declaring that with effect from 16.6.1978 he be declared as having been appointed as University Engineer and with effect from 22.11.1983 he be deemed to be appointed as Executive Engineer since respondent No. 2 was upgraded to the said post. Mandamus be issued to the University to upgrade the post of Executive Engineer to the level of Superintending Engineer with effect from 1.6.1980. Petitioner be given all consequential reliefs. Mandamus be issued to the University to issue appointment Orders in pursuance of resolution No. 184 of March, 1988. Order dated 18.12.1990 and communication dated 19.12.1990 be quashed. Prohibition be issued to the University restraining the University from appointing Shri G.S.Mehta, respondent No. 3 as a University Engineer.

2. On 20.2.1993, it stands recorded in the Order of even date, that petitioner does not press his petition against respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 was deleted from the array of parties. In that view of the matter, the last prayer need not be considered by this court.

3. Facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner on which the claim is based is that after obtaining his graduation degree in Civil Engineering in the year 1962, petitioner joined Indian Railways as Assistant Engineer (Civil). He thereafter joined the NBCC as an Executive Engineer. By the year 1977, he had 16 years of working experience. On 16.11.1977, the University issued an advertisement inviting applications to fill up a post of Executive Engineer in the pay scale of Rs. 1100-50-1600. Though in the advertisement, post advertised was that of Executive Engineer but under the column 'Educational qualifications for" the post was referred to as "University Engineer" . Petitioner pleads that as a matter of fact post advertised was that of University Engineer. The University issued another advertisement dated 20.1.1978 inviting applications to fill up the post of University Engineer in the pay scale of Rs. 1100-50-1600. Petitioner states that under both the advertisements i.e. dated 16.11.1977 and 20.1.1978, pay scale referred to was the same i.e. Rs. 1100-50-1600. Petitioner alleges that he applied for the said post and appeared before the selection committee. Petitioner alleges that the post of University Engineer which was being filled was the result of a vacancy caused due to the retirement of Shri D.R.Chopra, who was an Executive Engineer under the CPWD but was on deputation under the University as University Engineer. According to the petitioner, the post of Executive Engineer did not exist in the University. The said post, according to the petitioner was created surreptitiously in November,1983 when Shri S.P.Goel, respondent No. 2 was appointed against said post.

4. Notwithstanding, the existence of a clear vacancy, petitioner alleges that the University of Delhi created a temporary work charged post of Executive Engineer (Design) for works relating to the development of South Delhi Campus. Letters dated 18.4.1978, 28.4.1978 and 4.5.1978 have been relied upon by the petitioner in support of his contention that the said post of Executive Engineer as a work charged post was created somewhere in April, 1978. According to the petitioner, the advertisements dated 16.11.1977 and 20.1.1978 could obviously not be in respect of the said temporarily created work charged post of Executive Engineer (Design) for works in the South Delhi Campus.

5. On 29.5.1978, letter of appointment was issued to the petitioner appointing him as Executive Engineer (Design) with effect from June, 1978. Petitioner claims that he was unaware that his appointment was against the temporarily created post on work charged basis for South Delhi. Within a week of his joining, alleges the petitioner, he was entrusted with additional duties of construction at South Campus. From November,1979, for unexplained reasons salary of the petitioner was released from the funds of V.P.Chest Institute and not out of the funds of Delhi University, South Campus or Delhi University, North Campus.

6. Petitioner had to appear for an interview for selection to the post of Chief Engineer (South) in the Indian Telephone Industries for which he required a "No Objection Certificate". Vide letter dated 25.1.1984, petitioner made a request for issuance of the said "No Objection Certificate". Petitioner alleges that the said letter was not processed. Petitioner relies upon letter dated 13.2.1984 written by the University Engineer to the Registrar of University pointing out that petitioner's request was processed very late. Purpose of relying on the said letter dated 13.2.1984 as per the petitioner is to show that as of February, 1984, the University was treating the petitioner as an employee of the University of Delhi. Letter dated 13.2.1984 addressed by the University Engineer to the Registrar of the University was responded to by the Registrar, by letter dated 18.6.1982, taking the stand that the petitioner was not on the strength of the University and question, therefore, of issuing "No Objection Certificate" does not arise.

7. Petitioner alleges that in the year 1986, he wanted his application to be forwarded for the post of Project Manager under the Ministry of defense. Same was not forwarded by the University of Delhi. Petitioner applied for a number of posts but at no point of time did the University of Delhi forward his application.

8. As per the petition, sometimes in the year 1984, Sh.S.P. Goel (Respondent No. 2), Executive Engineer (South Campus) who was holding the said post purely on ad hoc capacity was made permanent without the knowledge of the petitioner, overlooking his claim. Petitioner alleges that the said appointment was malafide and intended to confer an illegal benefit on Shri S.P.Goel.

9. Not only was the petitioner discriminated against but he was harassed, claims the petitioner. The peak of harassment reached when petitioner's basis pay was reduced to Rs. 1,200/- and was restored after the financial officer intervened in the matter.

10. Petitioner alleges that every University employee is entitled to Provident Fund and for grant of benefit under the fund, petitioner was entitled to the benefit of entire service rendered by him under the University. For no apparent reason the University, in the service records treated petitioner's initial appointment as of 1.11.1985.

11. Petitioner alleges that in December,1986, the post of Executive Engineer (North Campus) was upgraded to the level of Superintending Engineer. Ignoring the claim of the petitioner, respondent No. 2, Shri S.P.Goel, Executive Engineer (North Campus) was appointed as the Superintending Engineer vide office Order dated 24.12.1986. Petitioner made a representation dated 7.1.1987. By letter dated 13.2.1987, the University informed the petitioner that his request that he too be upgraded to the post of Superintending Engineer could not be acceded to. Petitioner continued to make representations which were turned down vide University's letter dated 18.4.1987.

12. Considering the fact that the petitioner was supervising works of the value of Rs. 4.5 crores, petitioner claims that on 11.12.1987, the University Engineer recommended upgrading the post held by the petitioner to that of Superintending Engineer.

13. Not only was his post not upgraded but it was continued to be shown as the "work charged post". Petitioner claims that he made representations on 7.5.1987, 23.7.1987, 9.7.1987, 19.10.1987 and 31.10.1987, but no relief was granted to him.

14. Somewhere in January, 1988, alleges the petitioner, the work of South Campus was decentralised. On 19th March,1988, the Executive Council of the University passed Resolution No. 184 dated 19.3.1988 upgrading the post of Executive Engineer, South Campus to that of Superintending Engineer. Petitioner states that he became entitled to be upgraded to the post of Superintending Engineer as a consequence of the Resolution aforesaid and accordingly on 22.4.1988 he addressed a letter to the Director, South Campus which was in the nature of a joining report informing the Director, South Campus that the petitioner was joining as Superintending Engineer.

15. Petitioner claims that on 2.5.1988, he was offered appointment by IIT, Kanpur as a Superintending Engineer but he did not join as he was upgraded to the post of Superintending Engineer under the University of Delhi. The Director (South Campus) continued to treat the petitioner as an Executive Engineer since the Deputy Registrar wrote a letter dated 9.5.1988 that the upgraded post had to be filled by a duly constituted selection committee. It was not a case of automatic upgradation. Petitioner alleges that as a result of the aforesaid acts of the University, he came under mental stress and he had to avail leave. Petitioner wrote letter dated 5.7.1988 to the University that he would be joining IIT, Kanpur but a lien should be kept on the post held by him under the University. Unfortunately on 26.8.1988, the IIT Kanpur withdrew the letter of offer to the petitioner.

16. Fed up with the attitude of the University, petitioner alleges that he was left with no option but to file a writ petition seeking the prayers as noted by me in para 1 of the present judgment.

17. After it was filed, the petition was amended. Amendment incorporated was to challenge the appointment of Shri G.S.Mehta, respondent No. 3 which challenge was later on given up as noted by me in para 2 above.

18. Stand of the University is that the post which was advertised on 16.11.1977 was that of an Executive Engineer and not University Engineer as claimed by the petitioner. Petitioner had made only one application dated 16.12.1977 and the same was for the post advertised on 16.11.1977. He was selected by the selection committee for appointment to the post of Executive Engineer. On 29.5.1978, letter of appointment was issued to the petitioner and in the said letter of appointment, it was clearly stated to the petitioner that he was offered the post of Executive Engineer which was a temporarily created work charged post in the scale of Rs. 1100-50-1600. The letter reads as under:-

"Shri U.V.Uttamchandani,

BD/5E, Munirka,

New Delhi -110057

Dear Sir,

With reference to your candidature for the post of Executive Engineer, it has been decided to offer you appointment as Executive engineer against a temporary Work-charged post in the scale of Rs. 1100-50-1600 for a period not exceeding six months in the first instance from the date of your joining duty. The post carries allowances such as Dearness, City Compensatory and House Rent at the rates in force in the University from time to time. Your total monthly emoluments will be fixed in such a manner as to go up to Rs. 2000/- p.m.

The appointment is temporary Work-charged post for detailed designing work relating to development of land allotted for South Delhi Campus, and is terminable at any time by a notice of one month in writing or forthwith by payment of one month salary in lieu of notice period without assigning any reason.

You will be governed by the University Non-Teaching Employees (Terms & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1971 as amended from time to time.

The appointment will further be subject to the verification of the educational qualifications and other antecedents and you are requested to bring with you the following certificates in original at the time of joining duty:-

i) Certificate showing academic qualifications;

ii) Matriculation/High School/ Higher Secondary/ School Leaving Certificate showing date of his birth; and

iii) Character Certificates from two Gazetted Officers or two responsible persons not below the rank of Lecturer in the University.

If the offer is acceptable to you, you may please send me your acceptance of offer by 3rd of June, 1978 and report to the undersigned for duty immediately and in any case not later than 15.6.1978."

19. Petitioner accepted the said post and gave his joining report under cover of letter dated 16.6.1978. The said letter submitted by the petitioner reads as under:-

"The University Engineer,

Delhi University,

Delhi-110 007.

Sub: Joining Report of the post of Executive Engineer.

Ref: Appointment letter No. EstabIII/Engg./ Sel/78/12989 Dated 29.5.1978.

Sir,

I am giving my joining report today the 16th June, 1978 (F.N.) for the above post.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully

sd/-

(U.V. Uttamchandani)

Advance copy to Registrar,

University of Delhi, Delhi 110 007.

sd/-

(U.V. Uttamchandani)"

20. Relying on aforesaid two letters, University pleads that there was, thus, no question of the petitioner not knowing as to against what post he was appointed. Petitioner was told in no unequivocal terms that his appointment as an Executive Engineer was against a temporary work-charged post. Petitioner understood the same in no uncertain terms, evidenced by the petitioner's joining letter dated 16.6.1978 in which, while referring to the letter of appointment dated 29.5.1978 petitioner himself stated that he was joining against the post of Executive Engineer.

21. According to the University, the post of University Engineer was separately advertised on 20.1.1978. Petitioner did not apply for the said post. In fact, when the petitioner submitted his application on 16.12.1977, the post of University Engineer had not even been advertised. Selection Committee which met on 5.4.1978 to consider appointments to the post of Executive Engineer as well as University Engineer considered the application of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Executive Engineer and not to the post of University Engineer. Petitioner was selected as an Executive Engineer and that is why letter of appointment was issued to him offering him the post of Executive Engineer. As far as the post of University Engineer was concerned, none was found suitable. Thus, according to the University, claim of the petitioner that the selection committee which met on 5.4.1978 recommended his appointment for the post of University Engineer was incorrect. Minutes of the Selection Committee meeting have been annexed by the University as Annexures II to the counter affidavit filed.

22. Letter of offer and acceptance, according to the University clinches the issue pertaining to the initial appointment of the petitioner. It is further alleged that in the year 1988, petitioner filed a writ petition seeking regularization to the post of Executive Engineer which was withdrawn. No particulars of the said writ petition have been given. However, at the hearing, petitioner did not dispute that he had filed such a writ petition praying that his services be regularized as Executive Engineer which writ petition was subsequently withdrawn.

23. It is stated by the University that the post of University Engineer is the senior most post and the incumbent functions as the head of the Engineering Department of the University.

24. Relying upon the letter of appointment issued to the petitioner, stand of the University is that it was clearly indicated to the petitioner that not only is the post a temporary post and is a work charged post but it was also clearly stated that it was created for a period of six months. Appointment was extended for another period of 6 months by office Order dated 1.1.1979. On account of UGC not sanctioning further funds for development in South Campus, duration of the post was not extended and under normal circumstances service of the petitioner would have been dispensed with. Purely on humanitarian consideration petitioner was posted to the V.P. Chest Institute on 1.1.1979 to supervise certain projects which were in progress in the said institute. He was paid a salary from the funds of the said project. Petitioner accepted his posting at V.P.Chest Institute which was effected under cover of letter dated 27.11.1979. It is stated that if petitioner had not accepted his posting at V.P.Chest Institute, his services would have come to an end. Petitioner joined work at V.P.Chest Institute fully aware that it was beneficial for him to join at said institute. Stand of the petitioner that for unexplainable reasons he was paid his salary from V.P.Chest Institute is, therefore, incorrect. Petitioner was always in the knowledge of the true and correct facts. Later on, when funds became available, petitioner was brought back as Executive Engineer (South Campus).

25. As regards the grievance of the petitioner that the "No Objection Certificate" to Indian Telephone Industries was not submitted, it is stated by the University that no such certificate was sought. Confidential records pertaining to the petitioner was sought for, which could not be sent as the request reached the University late. In any case, none could be sent as the University was not maintaining any confidential records pertaining to the petitioner. It is denied that petitioner lost employment under Indian Telephone Industries due to any Act of omission by the University. Explaining the letter dated 18.6.1982 addressed by the Assistant Registrar of the University of Delhi on which the petitioner relied to establish that he was being treated by the University as being on the rolls of the University as of June, 1982, it has been stated by the University that the said letter does not relate to the application of the petitioner for being considered for appointment to the post of Chief Engineer, IIT, but pertains to an application submitted by the petitioner to NBCC. It is explained that the said letter was correctly written as the University had no concern with the employment of the petitioner. Petitioner should have approached the authorities at V.P. Chest Institute. Similarly grievance of the petitioner relating to not forwarding his application for appointment under the Ministry of defense is explained likewise. It is denied that the petitioner was holding dual charge as Executive Engineer (Design), South Campus and in addition the charge of Executive Engineer, V.P. Chest Institute, as alleged by the petitioner. As regards the appointment of respondent No. 2, Shri S.P.Goel, it is stated by the University that Shri S.P.Goel joined the University in August,1954, much prior to the date when the petitioner joined the University. With effect from 3.3.1965, Shri S.P.Goel was appointed as Assistant Engineer. In April,1969 when University Engineer who was on deputation from CPWD proceeded on leave, current duty charge to the post of University Engineer was entrusted to Sh.Goel on 28.4.1969 for one month. Likewise he was entrusted the charge of University Engineer for one month from 11.8.1970. In the year 1976, he attended an advanced course at Roorkee University. In the year 1977, a post of Executive Engineer (work-charged) was created. Sh.S.P. Goel was one of the candidates whose name was considered by the selection committee which met on 17.10.1977. Sh.S.P. Goel was selected. Accordingly with effect from 24.10.1977, he was posted as Executive Engineer (work charged).

26. The incumbent working as University Engineer retired on 31.1.1980. Sh.S.P. Goel was entrusted with the current duty charge to the post of University Engineer with effect from 1.2.1980. He functioned as University Engineer till 15.3.1980. On 16.3.1980, Sh.D.K.Roy joined the University as University Engineer. Sh.D.K.Roy functioned as the University Engineer up to 13.9.1981. With effect from 14.9.1981 to 17.8.1982, Sh.S.P. Goel officiated as University Engineer.

27. On 18.8.1982, Sh.Prem Chand joined as University Engineer on deputation from CPWD. Unfortunately, he passed away on 5.12.1985. Once again, Sh.S.P. Goel was entrusted with the current duty charge to the post of University Engineer. The Order was subsequently modified giving officiating appointment as University Engineer to Sh.S.P. Goel with effect from 6.12.1985. He continued to officiate as University Engineer till Sh.G.S. Mehta joined the University on deputation from CPWD as University Engineer with effect from 12.1.1987.

28. According to the University, career profile of Sh.S.P. Goel under the University would reveal that he had a long association with the University from 1954 and, therefore, petitioner could raise no grievance that the University relaxed the norms while selecting Sh.S.P. Goel as Executive Engineer in the year 1983 when a permanent post of Executive Engineer was created. In any case, it is submitted by the University that in the year 1990 when the writ petition was filed, it was too late in the day for the petitioner to question the appointment of Sh.S.P. Goel as Executive Engineer on permanent basis with effect from the year 1983. Grievance of the petitioner that for purposes of General Provident Fund, his entire length of service is being ignored is denied. It is stated that the petitioner is being treated as a member of the General Provident Fund with effect from 16.6.1978, the date of his initial appointment against the work charged post of Executive Engineer in the South Campus.

29. Upgradation of Sh.S.P.Goel from Executive Engineer to Superintending Engineer in the year 1987, has been explained by stating that the post of Executive Engineer, North Campus which was held by Sh.S.P. Goel was upgraded to that of Superintending Engineer. Screening and Evaluation Committee assessed his suitability for being promoted to the upgraded post and since Sh.S.P. Goel was already permanently employed as Executive Engineer and the Screening & Evaluation Committee found him suitable, he was appointed to the upgraded post. Since it was a case of upgrading an existing post which was held on permanent basis by Sh.S.P. Goel, it is stated by the University that petitioner had no right to be considered for appointment to the said post.

30. It is stated that the post which the petitioner was holding was also upgraded to that of Superintending Engineer on 19.3.1988. It is explained that by his representations, petitioner did not challenge the upgradation of the post at North Campus. He merely asked that similar benefits be extended to him which was extended on 19.3.1988.

31. At the hearing counsel for the petitioner failed to articulate submissions in any chronological order. Accordingly, while reserving for judgment on 16.1.2004, permission was granted to the petitioner to file a brief synopsis of the arguments with advance copy to the respondent which was also given liberty to file written synopsis. Three days' time each was granted. Petitioner filed written synopsis on 16th January,2003. It was noted that copy was sent to counsel for the University by post. Written synopsis were received by the counsel of the University on 28th January,2004.

32. The written synopsis filed by the petitioner are as inarticulate as the submissions were. They run into 29 pages apart from 8 pages of list of dates of events.

33. I have gone through the lengthy written synopsis filed.

34. As rightly pointed out by counsel for the University during oral arguments and even in the written synopsis, the first and foremost issue to be decided is, what was the initial appointment of the petitioner? Was he appointed as University Engineer or was he appointed as Executive Engineering?

35. It is no doubt true that in the advertisement dated 16.11.1977 under the column "Essential Qualifications", the post has been referred to as that of 'University Engineer' but in the main body of the advertisement, the post is referred to as that of 'Executive Engineer'. Admittedly, petitioner applied on 16.12.1977. Admittedly, the post of University Engineer was separately advertised on 20.1.1978. Admittedly, petitioner had submitted only one application dated 16.12.1977. Same, therefore, could not be in response to the advertisement dated 20.1.1978. On 5.4.1978, the selection committee considered the eligible applicants for appointment to the post of University Engineer as well as to the post of Executive Engineer. Minutes of the meeting of the University show that none was found suitable to be appointed as University Engineer. Petitioner was placed at serial No. 1 of the select panel for being appointed as Executive Engineer. Letter of appointment dated 29.5.1978 offering appointment to the petitioner clearly stipulates that in reference to petitioner's candidatures for the post of Executive Engineer, he was being offered appointment as Executive Engineer against a temporarily work charged post for a period not exceeding 6 months at the first instance. Petitioner accepted the said letter of appointment and gave a joining report dated 16.6.1978 in which the petitioner in the caption subject stated as under:-

"Joining Report of the Post of Executive Engineer"

36. This clinches the issue against the petitioner. The discrepancy in the original advertisement got clarified when the petitioner was offered the letter of appointment. The post offered to him was stated in no uncertain terms as that of Executive Engineer temporarily created as a work-charged post. It was also stated in no uncertain terms that appointment was for a period of 6 months. Petitioner accepted the same. Petitioner cannot question the said appointment.

37. In any case in the year 1990, it is too late in the day for the petitioner to question his appointment which was effected in the year 1978.

38. The second issue which needs to be addressed is the posting of the petitioner at V.P.Chest Institute. Letter of appointment issued to the petitioner at the first instance on 29.5.1978 clearly limited his appointment for six months. Stand of the University in the counter affidavit is that with effect from 1.1.1979, it was extended by another six months. The further stand of the University is that the UGC did not release further funds for development works in South Campus after November,1979. The post offered to the petitioner was a work charged post and in the absence of any funds, there would obviously be no works. Petitioner's services indeed, became liable to be dispensed with. Action of the University as stated in the counter affidavit, that on humanitarian consideration with effect from 1.11.1979, petitioner was posted at V.P. Chest Institute as certain works were in progress there and salary of the petitioner was met out of the funds of the said institute cannot be said to be arbitrary. It was an action taken for the benefit of the petitioner. Petitioner, therefore, cannot raise any grievance on that account. In any case in the year 1990, it is too late for the petitioner to raise grievance in respect of events which happened in the year 1979.

39. Grievance of the petitioner for appointment under other organizations were not being forwarded by the University is neither here nor there.

40. Petitioner was always kept informed of his status. In any case, if at all the petitioner was aggrieved, he ought to have filed an objection in the years 1980-81 when these events transpired. Raising these grievances in the year 1990 is of no meaning. There is delay and latches in predicating any claim based on said grievance. In any case, no prayer has been made in respect of said grievances.

41. The next issue which needs to be adjudicated is the dispute of inter-se seniority between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. To my mind, even said claim is highly belated. In any case, question of inter se seniority would arise between persons holding two posts of same status which are feeder posts to a next post. From the counter affidavit of the University, it is apparent that Sh.S.P. Goel had joined the University in the year 1954 with effect from 3.3.1965 he was posted as an Assistant Engineer on permanent basis. Sh.S.P.Goel was, therefore, on the permanent establishment of the University. Petitioner was nowhere in the picture then. Sh.S.P. Goel was promoted as Executive Engineer on 17.10.77, on which date, once again petitioner was nowhere in the picture. Petitioner joined as Executive Engineer against a work charged post on 16.6.1978. Sh.Goel has been functioning as an Executive Engineer with effect from 24.10.1977, much prior to the petitioner. In any case, Sh.S.P. Goel would rank senior to the petitioner even if one were to treat the petitioner as holding the post equivalent to that of Sh.S.P. Goel. When the post of Executive Engineer, North Campus was converted into a regular post, since Sh.S.P.Goel was found suitable and was already functioning as Executive Engineer prior to the petitioner, he was appointed to said post on permanent basis. I find nothing wrong in said Act of the University.

42. The next issue which needs to be adjudicated is whether the petitioner could raise any grievance and claim parity to be promoted as Superintending Engineer when Sh.S.P. Goel was promoted as Superintending Engineer.

43. Pleadings of the parties show that on 9.12.1986, the University upgraded the post of Executive Engineer (North Campus) held by Sh.S.P.Goel to that of Superintending Engineer. Since Sh.S.P.Goel was holding the post of Executive Engineer on permanent basis and said post was upgraded, the University, to my mind took a right action in assessing the suitability of Sh.S.P.Goel to be appointed against the said upgraded post and on being found suitable granting appointment to him to said post. I may emphasis that it is a case of upgradation of a post permanently held by an incumbent and said incumbent would have a preferential right to be considered for being appointed to the said upgraded post. I find that the University has acted with fairness towards the petitioner as well, evidenced by the fact that when the petitioner made a representation that post held by him be likewise upgraded to that of Superintending Engineer, University acceded to the said request and promoted the petitioner as Superintending Engineer.

44. From the pleadings of the parties, the documents on record and the submissions dealt with by me above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed.

45. Though at the time of hearing, no arguments were advanced on CM 8629/1998, however, in the written synopsis, I find that the petitioner has prayed that relief as prayed in CM 8629/98 be granted to him.

46. Averments made in the said CM reflected that there is a dispute whether petitioner would be entitled to any pension or not. Averments in the said CM also show that petitioner faced disciplinary proceedings and his services were terminated.

47. To my mind, it would require substantive pleadings to decide whether the petitioner would be entitled to the reliefs as claimed in the CM. The said dispute cannot be adjudicated on cursory pleadings and that too in an application which goes beyond the scope of the main writ petition. CM 8629/98 is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a substantive petition raising the dispute pertaining to his terminal dues.