JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Having heard learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned counsel on behalf of the respondents, the endeavour has been made by learned Senior Counsel to construct the provision of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India to the effect that the powers can be exercised by this High Court if the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen within the territory of this State, notwithstanding the fact that the seat of such Government or Authority or the residence of such person is not within that territory. 2. Respondent No.1- U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam, runs many of its offices within the limits of this State viz. almost in every district, deploying its engineers and other related staff, to perform the task assigned. So, the Court entertains this writ petition, nonetheless, the head office of U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. is situated in Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.). 3. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner Dinesh Chandra Bahuguna has been employed to work as a sub-engineer in the sub-office of respondent no.1, situated at Dehradun. Likewise, other sub-engineers, whose names have been adverted in paragraph no.13 of the petition, starting from Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav to Mr. Swadesh Kumar (as many as 12 in number), are also posted in different offices of U.P. Nirman Nigam, within the territory of State of Uttarakhand itself. 4. Though, the petitioner got appointment on 4.5.1991 and all other sub-engineers, as indicated above, were also accepted in the employment of respondents contemporarily way back in 1990-91 but all of them were regularized on 13.6.2003 whereas the petitioner was kept deprived from such privilege. 5. All the more, the grievance of the petitioner was aggravated when, by the office order dated 5.3.2013 issued by Mr. R.N. Yadav, Managing Director, pursuant to the Govt. Letter No.3170/23-8-12-63 C.B./12 dated 31st January, 2013, the remaining sub-engineers, whose services stood regularized on 13.6.2003 under the backlog quota of other backward classes, were directed to be regularized with effect from 6.3.1997 instead of 13.6.2003. Nothing could be divulged in such order as to what was the rationale of effecting such regularization retrospectively with effect from 6.3.1997. 6. However, paragraph no.11 of the counter affidavit filed by Mr. Nothing could be divulged in such order as to what was the rationale of effecting such regularization retrospectively with effect from 6.3.1997. 6. However, paragraph no.11 of the counter affidavit filed by Mr. Mujtaba Adil, posted as Deputy Manager (Personnel) in the U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam, Lucknow, reveals that the regularization has been made effective, as above, on the ground that the employees of scheduled caste category were regularized in the year 1997 and all these 12 sub-engineers were regularized against the backlog quota. So, the Government, vide its order no.3170 dated 31.1.2013, has regularized their services w.e.f. the year 1997. 7. Looking to the surnames of these 12 engineers, it reflects that some of them are ‘Rathore’ or ‘Gupta’ by caste and these castes are not the indicative of OBC caste. 8. It is undisputed that petitioner Dinesh Chandra Bahuguna got regular pay-scale of Rs.5000-8000 w.e.f. 24.11.1998. Even at the time of grant of such scale, his name, along with other sub-engineers, ought to have been taken into consideration for the purpose of regularization, and he should not have been eliminated under the garb that he was not regularized under the OBC backlog quota, like these 12 sub-engineers, as stated above. So, this is apparently an unequal treatment with the petitioner. 9. In view of what has been stated above, the Court allows the writ petition and directs the respondents to regularize the petitioner on the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil) at least w.e.f. 24.11.1998, if not from 6.3.1997.