SPA/291/2020
2025 Latest Caselaw 71 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

SPA/291/2020 on 5 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                                               2025:UHC:3445-DB
               Office Notes,
              reports, orders
SL.           or proceedings
      Date                                                         COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.          or directions and
             Registrar's order
             with Signatures


                                 SPA No. 291 of 2020
                                 Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Judgment:(per Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

Mr. M. C. Kandpal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Dr. Udyog Shukla, learned counsel for appellant.

2. Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4.

3. Appellant filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1346 of 2007, seeking the following reliefs :

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Office Memorandum dated 14.12.2006 (Annexure 24 to the writ petition) as well as the Office letter dated 11.01.2003, whereby the petitioner's designation was re-

designated as an Assistant (Annexure 15 to the writ petition).

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the office letter dated 23.05.2007 issued by the Assistant Registrar (Annexure -26 to the writ petition.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents to grant the benefit of the promotional pay scale on the basis of the scale of Rs. 8000- 13,500 w.e.f. 01.04.1996 with a designation of E&M Supervisor with all other future consequential benefits with designation after re-fixation of the scale of the petitioner from Rs. 7500-12000 to Rs. 8000-13500 after taking into consideration the report of the committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Dr. B.S. Mathur dated 05.12.2021 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition)".

4. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge, vide judgement dated 21.08.2020. The operative portion of the impugned judgment is reproduced below :

"8. The petitioner has failed to show any infringement of his fundamental right in passing the impugned order, unless the petitioner successfully shows his fundamental right which has been infringed at this stage. Since the respondents have specifically stated that the B.M Mathur Committee Report has not significance and they did not fall under any regulation and has no statutory authority to change the designation. There is no contradiction in passing the impugned order.

9. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the view that the petitioners fail to make out any case of interference by this Court. The present writ petition is bereft of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed."

5. Feeling aggrieved by dismissal of his Writ Petition, writ 2025:UHC:3445-DB petitioner (appellant herein) has filed this Special Appeal.

6. Learned counsel for writ petitioner (appellant herein) submits that the Mathur Committee, in its report dated 05.12.2001, had recommended for upgradation of the post of Hostel Supervisor, as Electrical and Mechanical Supervisor in the scale of Rs. 8,000/- to 13,500/-. The recommendation made by Mathur Committee was not accepted qua the post of Hostel Supervisor, while the recommendations made by Mathur Committee, in respect of other posts, were accepted, and such posts were upgraded, along with their pay scale.

7. Learned counsel for appellant has drawn attention of this Court to the document contained at Page No. 30, filed along with the Appeal. By the said document, large number of posts was upgraded, pursuant to the recommendation made by Mathur Committee.

8. Learned counsel for the I.I.T., Roorkee submits that appellant wants not only upgradation of pay scale, but also re-designation of post, and by the document relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, only pay scale was upgraded and no post was re-designated. Thus, he submits that the case of appellant is different from the persons, who were serving against other posts.

9. Learned counsel for I.I.T. Roorkee, contended that the recommendation made by Mathur Committee, was although accepted by the earlier Director vide order dated 09.09.2002, however, subsequent Director reviewed the said decision taken by his predecessor, on the ground that decision to upgrade the pay scale, can only be taken by the Board of Governors, and Director is not Competent for the said purpose.

10. The said contention, however, gets belied in view of the document enclosed as Annexure No. 1 to the interim relief application, filed along with Special Appeal.

11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of 2025:UHC:3445-DB the considered opinion that the appellant has been given unequal treatment.

12. Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgement. The Special Appeal is allowed, with a direction to the Competent Authority in I.I.T. Roorkee to place the recommendation made by Mathur Committee before the Board of Governors in its next meeting. The Board of Governors shall examine the matter and take decision in the next meeting as per law.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 05.05.2025 Shiksha

SHIKSHA

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24 b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c,

BINJOLA postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542 D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9 , cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.05.08 19:37:42 +05'30'