2025:UHC:3244-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Service Bench No. 356 of 2017 29 April, 2025 Punit Singh --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others. --Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Nailwal, Standing Counsel with Mr. Dinesh Bankoti, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent no. 1. Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for respondent nos. 2, 3 & 5. Mr. Tilak Ram Sharma, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, Advocate for respondent no. 4. -------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. (Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) JUDGMENT By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief:- “I. Issue, writ, rule or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to the respondents to allow the same benefits of pay and other allowances and also status in service at par to the THDC employees keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble Court and the facts highlighted in the body of the petition and to declare the status of the petitioner is regular and permanent, after calling the entire record from the respondents and further to direct the respondents to release the salary of the petitioner form 16.07.2013 to 31.10.2013 along with all consequential benefits.” 1 2025:UHC:3244-DB 2. According to the petitioner, THDC Institute of Hydropower Engineering and Technology, Bhagirathipuram, Tehri (hereinafter referred to as ‘THDC Institute’) became a constituent college of Uttarakhand Technical University, pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by Tehri Hydro Development Corporation India Ltd. and Uttarakhand Technical University, on 10.05.2011, and as per Clause (e) of the MoU, THDC Institute would run in self financing mode without any liability on the State Government. It is further his case that he was appointed as Assistant Professor (Mechanical Engineering) in THDC Institute, vide order dated 07.06.2012, issued by Vice Chancellor, Uttarakhand Technical University. 3. Professor N.S. Chaudhary, Vice Chancellor, Uttarakhand Technical University, Dehradun, however, has disputed the statement made in the writ petition and has alleged that no order of appointment was issued by Uttarakhand Technical University to the petitioner. The Vice Chancellor has further stated that MoU entered into between THDC India Ltd. and Uttarakhand Technical University was not vetted by the State Government. He has further stated that petitioner was appointed without selection in THDC Institute on contract for one year, vide letter dated 19.12.2011. 2 2025:UHC:3244-DB 4. Petitioner contends that since he was appointed in THDC Institute, and teachers serving in the said institute are getting higher salary, therefore, he is also entitled for the same salary, as is being paid to the teachers serving in the said institute. However, from the record, it is revealed that petitioner is serving in another college, which is being run on self-finance mode, i.e. Women Institute of Technology, Dehradun (for short ‘WIT’). 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2, 3 & 5 submits that although, petitioner was initially engaged on contract as teacher in THDC Institute, however, petitioner was named as an accused in FIR registered under Sections 452/34, 323/34, 307/34 and 504 IPC and Section 30 of Arms Act, and after his arrest, he remained in judicial custody and due to this reason petitioner was put under suspension by Director, THDC Institute, vide order dated 23.04.2013. He submits that thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 10.05.2013 by the Director, THDC Institute. Contents of the said notice is extracted below:- “It has been reported that a case against you in respect of criminal offence is under investigation for which you remained in Police Custody for more than 48 hrs. This is a serious misconduct and is in violation of the service conduct rules. Further, you were absent from the Institute w.e.f. 16th April, 2013 without any information. You are therefore directed to 'explain on or before 17- 05-2013 the reasons for un-authorized absence from the Institute and also the serious criminal offence 3 2025:UHC:3244-DB done by you for which you were taken under Police Custody at Dehradun. Please note that action as per Service Conduct and Disciplinary rules leading to termination of services shall be taken against you if the reply found is un- satisfactory. It is informed that your services in THDC- IHET, Tehri are temporary and you are liable to be dismissed for such serious misconducts.” 6. Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2, 3 & 5 has drawn our attention to the notice issued by lawyer of the petitioner on 14.05.2013 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) against petitioner’s suspension. In paragraph no. 1 of the said notice, it is stated that petitioner was appointed by Vice Chancellor, Uttarakhand Technical University. Mr. Kandpal further submits that petitioner has relied upon a document, allegedly signed by Vice Chancellor, Uttarakhand Technical University (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), which he claims to be his appointment order. Thus, he submits that petitioner’s claim for salary and other monetary benefits at par with employees serving in THDC Institute is misconceived, as teachers appointed by Vice Chancellor of the University would get same remuneration, notwithstanding the fact that they are serving in different constituent colleges. He submits that as per own showing of the petitioner, anyone appointed in THDC Institute is entitled to higher salary and more allowances, therefore, a person, who is getting more salary in THDC Institute would not normally be liable for transfer to other constituent colleges, where salary is less, unless such constituent 4 2025:UHC:3244-DB college undertakes to pay same amount as salary/allowances to an employee, who comes on transfer from THDC Institute. 7. Mr. Kandpal, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2, 3 & 5 has drawn our attention to the order dated 15.07.2013, passed by Director, THDC Institute, whereby petitioner was advised to report at Uttarakhand Technical University with immediate effect and he was informed that he would not have any choice in the matter and he shall be deemed to have been relieved from THDC Institute w.e.f. 16.07.2013. The said order refers to approval of the Competent Authority. 8. Petitioner did not challenge the aforesaid order dated 15.07.2013 passed by Director, THDC Institute, and petitioner thereafter unconditionally submitted his joining in Uttarakhand Technical University. The Vice Chancellor of the University issued a letter to the Director, Women Institute of Technology, Dehradun, wherein Vice Chancellor referred to the request made by petitioner for joining and permission to join duties was granted to the petitioner. Pursuant to permission granted by Vice Chancellor, petitioner joined duties in Women Institute of Technology. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the salary and other benefits, which petitioner was getting in THDC Institute were protected, as is apparent from Vice Chancellor’s order dated 07.08.2013. He also refers to a 5 2025:UHC:3244-DB letter issued by Director, Women Institute of Technology, on 21.04.2017, for this purpose. 10. From the record, it is revealed that petitioner was appointed without there being a sanctioned post of Assistant Teacher. He was engaged on contract for one year, which was thereafter extended, in view of exigencies of work. Petitioner claims to have been appointed by Vice Chancellor, Uttarakhand Technical University, on 07.06.2012. 11. It is not in dispute that after serving for a while in THDC Institute, the Director of the said institute relieved him for joining in Uttarakhand Technical University on account of his detention in respect of a criminal case registered against him. Petitioner unconditionally reported duties in the University and on the instructions of Vice Chancellor of the University, he was given joining in Women Institute of Technology, and he thereafter served in Women Institute of Technology. 12. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the only inference which can be gathered is that petitioner is an employee of Uttarakhand Technical University or Women Institute of Technology, as the case may be and he is not the employee of THDC Institute, after 16.07.2013. In fact, petitioner’s lawyer in a notice given to Director, THDC Institute in 2013 categorically stated that petitioner was appointed by Uttarakhand Technical University, therefore, 6 2025:UHC:3244-DB he is an employee of the said University. 13. A teacher serving in Women Institute of Technology cannot claim pay parity with teachers serving in THDC Institute, which is maintained by Tehri Hydro Development Corporation of India Ltd. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, reliance by petitioner upon judgment rendered in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 193 of 2014 is misplaced. Thus, there is no reason for interference in the matter. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 29.04.2025 Navin 7 NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by 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 Date: 2025.05.05 10:54:34 -07'00'