High Court · 2025

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

2. Mr. Vipul Sharm a, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 t o 4.

3. Appellant filed Writ Pet it ion ( S/ S) No. 1346 of 2007, seeking t he following reliefs : “ ( i) I ssue a w rit , order or dir ect ion in t he nat ure of cert iorar i quashing t he Office Mem orandum dat ed 14.12.2006 ( Annexur e 24 t o t he w rit pet it ion) as w ell as t he Office let t er dat ed 11.01.2003, whereby r e- t he pet it ioner ’s designat ion was designat ed as an Assist ant ( Annexure 15 t o t he writ pet it ion) . ( ii) I ssue a w rit , order or direct ion in t he nat ure of cert iorari quashing t he Assist ant Regist rar ( Annexur e - 26 t o t he writ pet it ion. let t er dat ed 23.05.2007 issued by t he office t o t he t o grant r espondent s ( iii) I ssue a w rit , order or dir ect ion in t he nat ure of m andam us direct ing t he prom ot ional pay scale on t he basis of t he scale of Rs. 8000- 13,500 w.e.f. 01.04.1996 wit h a designat ion of E&M Supervisor wit h all ot her fut ur e consequent ial benefit s wit h designat ion aft er re- fixat ion of t he scale of t he pet it ioner from Rs. 7500- 12000 t o Rs. 8000- 13500 aft er t aking int o considerat ion t he r eport of t he com m it t ee const it ut ed under t he Chairm anship of Dr . B.S. Mat hur dat ed 05.12.2021 ( Annexur e- 11 t o t he w rit pet it ion) ” . t he benefit of

4. The said Writ Pet it ion was dism issed by learned Single Judge, vide j udgem ent dat ed 21.08.2020. The operat ive port ion of t he im pugned j udgm ent is reproduced below : infringed at “ 8. The pet it ioner has failed t o show any infringem ent of his fundam ent al right in passing t he im pugned order, unless t he pet it ioner successfully shows his fundam ent al right which has r espondent s hav e specifically st at ed t hat t he B.M Mat hur Com m it t ee Report has not significance and t hey did not fall under any r egulat ion and has no st at ut ory aut horit y is no cont radict ion in passing t he im pugned order. t he designat ion. Ther e t his st age. Since t o change t he

9. I n view of t he abov e discussions, t his Court is of t he view t hat t he pet it ioners fail t o m ake out any case of int er ference by t his Court . The present writ pet it ion is ber eft of m erit and is liable t o be dism issed.

10. Accordingly, t he pr esent writ pet it ion is her eby dism issed.”

5. Feeling aggrieved by dism issal of his Writ Pet it ion, writ pet it ioner ( appellant herein) has filed t his Special Appeal.

6. Learned counsel for writ pet it ioner ( appellant herein) subm it s t hat t he Mat hur Com m it t ee, in it s report dat ed

05.12.2001, had recom m ended for upgradat ion of t he post of Host el Supervisor, as Elect r ical and Mechanical Supervisor in t he scale of Rs. 8,000/ - t o 13,500/ - . The recom m endat ion m ade by Mat hur Com m it t ee was not accept ed qua t he post of Host el Supervisor, while t he recom m endat ions m ade by Mat hur Com m it t ee, in respect of ot her post s, were accept ed, and such post s were upgraded, along wit h t heir pay scale.

7. Learned counsel for appellant has drawn at t ent ion of t his Court t o t he docum ent cont ained at Page No. 30, filed along wit h t he Appeal. By t he said docum ent , large num ber of post s was upgraded, pursuant t o t he recom m endat ion m ade by Mat hur Com m it t ee.

8. Learned counsel for t he I .I .T., Roorkee subm it s t hat appellant want s not only upgradat ion of pay scale, but also re- designat ion of post , and by t he docum ent relied upon by learned counsel t he appellant , only pay scale was upgraded and no post was re- designat ed. Thus, he subm it s t hat t he case of appellant is different from t he persons, who were serving against ot her post s.

9. Learned counsel for I .I .T. Roorkee, cont ended t hat t he recom m endat ion m ade by Mat hur Com m it t ee, was alt hough accept ed by t he earlier Direct or vide order dat ed

09.09.2002, however, subsequent Direct or reviewed t he said decision t aken by his predecessor, on t he ground t hat decision t o upgrade t he pay scale, can only be t aken by t he Board of Governors, and Direct or is not Com pet ent for t he said purpose.

10. The said cont ent ion, however, get s belied in view of t he docum ent enclosed as Annexure No. 1 t o t he int erim relief applicat ion, filed along wit h Special Appeal.

11. Aft er hearing learned counsel for t he part ies, we are of t he considered opinion t hat t he appellant has been given unequal t reat m ent .

12. Therefore, we set aside t he im pugned j udgem ent . The Special Appeal is allowed, wit h a direct ion t o t he Com pet ent Aut horit y in I .I .T. Roorkee t o place t he recom m endat ion m ade by Mat hur Com m it t ee before t he Board of Governors in it s next m eet ing. The Board of Governors shall exam ine t he m at t er and t ake decision in t he next m eet ing as per law. (A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J.) (M a n o j Ku m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

05.05.2025 Shik sha SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24 b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542 D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9 , cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA