JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 21.1.1988, passed by respondent No. 1, Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Initially the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Accountant on 4th December, 1972 in Maheshwari Khetan Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd., Ramkola, district Deoria. He performed his duties in the said Mill as Assistant Accountant till 26.2.1979. 3. In pursuance of an advertisement for the post of Chief Accountant in R. B. Laxman Das Sugar and General Mills (P.) Ltd., Jarwal Road, district Bahraich, the petitioner applied for the same in the year 1979. He appeared in the interview and was appointed as Chief Accountant vide appointment letter dated 27.2.1979 in the scale of Rs. 455-20-555-25-880-25-955 on probation for the period of six months by the then Receiver of R. B. Laxman Das Sugar and General Mills (P.) Ltd. IN the meantime, the State Government in exercise of powers under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971, acquired R. B. Laxman Das Sugar and General Mills (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter called as the undertaking) on 10th May, 1979. 4. It is submitted that after acquisition of the Mill, the entire mill is being managed under the control and administration by the State Government under Section 16 of the U. P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971 and every employee who was employed in connection with the scheduled undertaking immediately before the appointed day, shall become an employee of the Corporation and shall hold the same post. It is further submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Chief Accountant on 27th February, 1979 by R. B. Laxman Das Sugar and General Mills (P.) Ltd. and as such at the time of taking over of the undertaking in May, 1979, by the U. P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., his services could be transferred on the same post. 5. The petitioner is aggrieved by a note made in the transfer order dated 15th of April, 1980, of the Corporation in district Deoria that he would be designated as Accountant. 6. 5. The petitioner is aggrieved by a note made in the transfer order dated 15th of April, 1980, of the Corporation in district Deoria that he would be designated as Accountant. 6. In the counter-affidavit, it is not denied that the State Government had acquired R. B. Laxman Das Sugar and General Mills (P.) Ltd. Jarwal Road, district Bahraich on 10th May, 1979 and thereafter the said undertaking stood transferred and vested in the U. P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. directly with effect from 3rd July, 1971. It is further averred that the provisions of Section 16 of the U. P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971, are applicable only to such persons, who were employed exclusively in connection with the scheduled undertaking immediately before the appointed date and not to such persons, who were employed either on or after the appointed day in connection with the scheduled undertaking. It is contended that the petitioner was admittedly appointed as Chief Accountant on 27th of February by undertaking much after the said appointed day, i.e., 3rd July, 1971. Therefore, the provisions of Section 16 of the said Act are not applicable to the petitioner. 7. It is further submitted that the undertaking was not a unit of U. P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. At the relevant time, there was a receiver appointed by the Collector, Bahraich, in the said Sugar Factory, who was managing the undertaking. The standing counsel has emphatically argued that the petitioner was designated as Chief Accountant and was placed in Supervisory Grade-B. IT is also submitted that in accordance with the recommendations of the Second Wage Board for Sugar Industry, Supervisory Grade-B is applicable to the post of Accountant and not to the Chief Accountant. The petitioner was given the pay scale of Supervisory Grade B and not the pay scale of the Chief Accountant as it is nature of duties actually performed by the petitioner and not the designation. The actual nature of duties are the only relevant factor for fitment under the Wage Board. 8. My attention has been drawn to paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit in which it has been stated that in U. P. State Sugar Corporation, the posts of Assistant Accountant, thereafter the Accountant, then Senior Accountant and finally Chief Accountant are in this order of hierarchy. 8. My attention has been drawn to paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit in which it has been stated that in U. P. State Sugar Corporation, the posts of Assistant Accountant, thereafter the Accountant, then Senior Accountant and finally Chief Accountant are in this order of hierarchy. Since the petitioner was working in the grade of Accountant, he has been designated as Accountant in the same grade of pay, which were admissible to him as Accountant. The petitioner has, therefore, not suffered any pecuniary loss by change of designation under the Corporation. Further from perusal of paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit, it appears that the Chief Accountants in the Corporation are made from the persons, who have put in atleast 12 to 14 years service and have working experience of Senior Accountant. As such the Corporation has not committed any illegality in redesignating the petitioner as Accountant as he has never been promoted on the post of Chief Accountant in the Corporation and the salary which he drew prior to his redesignation, was fully protected. 9. From the record, it appears that the petitioner was correctly placed in Supervisory Grade-B and the Corporation changed his designation from Chief Accountant in the undertaking to that of Accountant in the Corporation. The petitioner was never placed in the pay scale prescribed for the post of Chief Accountant, which is much higher than the pay scale in which the petitioner is drawing pay. 10. His fitment in Supervisory Grade-B according to his scale of pay in which he was working on the appointed date is not illegal merely on the ground of designation of the post which he was holding before the appointed date. The Corporation has given fitment in the same scale of pay in which he was working on the appointed date. It is the duties and responsibilities which are relevant and not the designation. The petitioner has failed to show Accountant and Supervisory Grade-B before taking over of the Mills, were the same as that of Accountant after taking over by the State Government. Hence no relief can be granted merely on the basis of designation. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.