High Court · 2025

Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2, 3 & 5 has draw n our at t ent ion t o t he not ice issued by lawyer of t he pet it ioner on 14.05.2013 ( Annex ure- 11 t o t he writ pet it ion) against pet it ioner ’s suspension. I n paragraph no. 1 of t he said not ice, it is st at ed t hat pet it ioner was appoint ed by Vice Chancellor, Ut t arakhand Technical Univer sit y. Mr. Kandpal furt her subm it s t hat pet it ioner has relied upon a docum ent , allegedly signed by Vice Chancellor, Ut t arakhand Technical Universit y ( Annexure- 7 t o t he w rit pet it ion) , w hich he claim s t o be his appoint m ent or der. Thus, he subm it s t hat pet it ioner ’s claim for salary and ot her m onet ary benefit s at par wit h em ployees serving in THDC I nst it ut e m isconceived, as t eacher s appoint ed by Vice Chancellor of t he Univer sit y sam e r em unerat ion, not wit hst anding t he fact t hat t hey are serving in different const it uent colleges. He subm it s t hat as per own showing of t he pet it ioner, anyone appoint ed in THDC I nst it ut e ent it led t o higher salary and m or e allowances, t her efore, a per son, w ho is get t ing m ore salary in THDC I nst it ut e would not norm ally be liable for t ransfer t o ot her const it uent colleges, w here salary is less, unless such const it uent 4 college undert akes t o sam e am ount salary/ allowances t o an em ployee, who com es on t ransfer from THDC I nst it ut e.

7. Mr. Kandpal, learned counsel appearing respondent nos. 2, 3 & 5 has drawn our at t ent ion t o t he order dat ed 15.07.2013, passed by Dir ect or, THDC I nst it ut e, w her eby pet it ioner was advised t o r eport at Ut t arakhand Technical Universit y wit h im m ediat e effect and he was inform ed t hat he would not have any choice in t he m at t er and he shall be deem ed t o have been relieved from THDC I nst it ut e w.e.f. 16.07.2013. The said or der r efers t o approval of t he Com pet ent Aut horit y.

8. Pet it ioner did not challenge t he aforesaid or der dat ed 15.07.2013 passed by Direct or, THDC I nst it ut e, and pet it ioner t hereaft er uncondit ionally subm it t ed his j oining in Ut t arakhand Technical Universit y. The Vice Chancellor of t he Universit y issued a let t er t o t he Direct or, Wom en I nst it ut e of Technology, Dehradun, w herein Vice Chancellor r eferr ed t o t he r equest m ade by pet it ioner j oining and per m ission t o j oin dut ies was grant ed t o t he pet it ioner. Pur suant t o per m ission grant ed by Vice Chancellor, pet it ioner j oined dut ies in Wom en I nst it ut e of Technology.

9. Lear ned counsel for t he pet it ioner subm it s t hat t he salary and ot her benefit s, w hich pet it ioner was get t ing in THDC I nst it ut e wer e prot ect ed, as is appar ent from Vice Chancellor ’s or der dat ed 07.08.2013. He also refer s t o a 5 let t er issued by Direct or, Wom en I nst it ut e of Technology, on

21.04.2017, for t his purpose.

10. From t he r ecor d, it is revealed t hat pet it ioner was appoint ed wit hout t her e being a sanct ioned post of Assist ant Teacher. He was engaged on cont ract for one year, which was t her eaft er ext ended, in view of exigencies of work. Pet it ioner claim s t o have been appoint ed by Vice Chancellor, Ut t arakhand Technical Universit y,

07.06.2012.

11. I t is not in disput e t hat aft er ser ving for a w hile in THDC I nst it ut e, t he Dir ect or of t he said inst it ut e r elieved j oining in Ut t arakhand Technical Univer sit y on account of his det ent ion in respect of a crim inal case regist ered against him . Pet it ioner uncondit ionally report ed dut ies in t he Universit y and on t he inst ruct ions of Vice Chancellor of t he Universit y, he was given j oining in Wom en I nst it ut e of Technology, and he t her eaft er served in Wom en I nst it ut e of Technology.

12. From t he afor esaid fact s and circum st ances, t he only inference which can be gat hered is t hat pet it ioner is an em ployee of Ut t arakhand Technical Univer sit y or Wom en I nst it ut e of Technology, as t he case m ay be and he is not t he em ployee of THDC I nst it ut e, aft er 16.07.2013. I n fact , pet it ioner ’s lawyer in a not ice given t o Direct or, THDC I nst it ut e in 2013 cat egorically st at ed t hat pet it ioner was appoint ed by Ut t arakhand Technical Univer sit y, t herefore, 6 he is an em ployee of t he said Univer sit y.

13. A t eacher serving in Wom en I nst it ut e of Technology cannot claim pay parit y wit h t eacher s serv ing in THDC I nst it ut e, w hich is m aint ained by Tehri Hydro Developm ent Corporat ion of I ndia Lt d.

14. For t he afor esaid reasons, reliance by pet it ioner upon j udgm ent rendered in Writ Pet it ion ( S/ B) No. 193 of 2014 is m isplaced. Thus, t here is no reason int erference in t he m at t er. The wr it pet it ion fails and is dism issed. No or der as t o cost s. ( A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

29.04.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82 a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF5 6D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA 7