JUDGMENT : Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief’s: “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to amend the order or regularisation of the petitioner, on the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 24-11-1998, since when he has been getting regular pay scale on the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil), in the similar manner as regularisation order of several similarly situated Sub-Engineers, have been amended. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to reckon the period of granting time scales of pay to the petitioner w.e.f. 24-11-1998, in the similar manner as other Sub-Engineers have got benefit of reckoning their service period, for granting them, time scales of pay, from a retrospective date i.e. the amended date of regularisation.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner was initially employed as Sub- Engineer (Civil) on 04-05-1991 on muster roll, in the establishment of the respondent Corporation. After 7 years in continuous service, he filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court with a prayer to regularize him and pay minimum of pay scale on the post of Sub- Engineer (Civil). The Allahabad High Court by an interim order dated 24-11-1998, passed in the said writ petition, directed the respondent Corporation to show cause as to why minimum of pay scale meant for the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil) may not be paid to the petitioner. Pursuant to that direction, the respondent Corporation took a decision on its own to provide minimum of pay scale on the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil) to the petitioner. The respondent Corporation started paying the minimum of pay scale i.e. Rs.1400- 2600/- to the petitioner w.e.f. 24-11-1998, the date when interim direction was issued by the Allahabad High Court in the writ petition of the petitioner. Subsequently, by order dated 12-10-1999, the interim order dated 24-11-1998, whereby a show cause order was issued as regards payment of minimum of pay scale of the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil) to the petitioner, was affirmed. Thereafter, pursuant to the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission, the pay scale admissible to the petitioner i.e. Rs. 1400-2600/- was revised to Rs. 5000-8000/- w.e.f. 24-11-1998, the date when minimum of pay scale was made admissible to the petitioner. Thereafter, pursuant to the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission, the pay scale admissible to the petitioner i.e. Rs. 1400-2600/- was revised to Rs. 5000-8000/- w.e.f. 24-11-1998, the date when minimum of pay scale was made admissible to the petitioner. On 25-01-2011, the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation passed an order, whereby the services of the petitioner were regularized in the establishment of the respondent Corporation w.e.f. 07-12-2010. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. Lucknow, vide order no. 649/Prabn. (Ka)/TC/RNN/2013 dated 05 March 2013 amended the date of regularization of as many as 12 Sub-Engineers of the Corporation. Their date of regularization as 13-06-2003 was amended as 06-03-1997. According to the petitioner, Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, Sri Vijay Bahadur Verma, Sri Dhaneshwar Yadav, Sri Pankaj Kumar Verma, Sri Wasifuddin, Sri Nem Nidhi Singh Rathor, Sri Aftab Ahmad, Sri Ravindra Kumar Yadav, Sri Virendra Kumar Gupta, Sri Vijay Kumar Soni, Sri Mahendra Nath Yadav & Sri Swadesh Kumar are the Sub-Engineers, whose date of regularization on the post of Sub-Engineers has been amended. It is stated that, as a result of amendment in the date of regularization on the post of Sub-Engineer, the abovementioned Sub-Engineers have become legally entitled for reckoning their seniority on the post of Sub-Engineer in the establishment of the Corporation, w.e.f. the date of their regularization on the post of Sub-Engineer. According to the petitioner, further consequence of the amendment in the date of regularization of the abovementioned Sub-Engineers, would be that promotion of the aforementioned 12 Sub-Engineers to the next ladder of post, would be accelerated. According to the petitioner, as a result of amendment in the date of regularization on the post of Sub-Engineer, one Sub-Engineer (Civil) Mr. Vijay Bahadur Verma, whose name is included in the order dated 05-03-2013 amongst the aforementioned 12 Sub-Engineers, has got accelerated promotion to the next higher post of Resident Engineer (Civil) in the enhanced pay band of Rs. 15,600-39,100/- with grade pay of Rs. 5400/-. The promotion order has been issued by the Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam, Lucknow, vide order letter/order no.04/Prabn. (Ka)/TC-Padonnati/RNN/2014 dated 01 January, 2014. 15,600-39,100/- with grade pay of Rs. 5400/-. The promotion order has been issued by the Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam, Lucknow, vide order letter/order no.04/Prabn. (Ka)/TC-Padonnati/RNN/2014 dated 01 January, 2014. It is stated that the aforementioned 12 Sub- Engineers were engaged in the establishment of the respondent Corporation as Sub-Engineers during the period 1990-91 and they were regularized on the post of Sub-Engineers in the year 2003; but, by order dated 05-03-2013, issued by the Managing Director of the establishment, the date of regularization of the said 12 Sub-Engineers, has been amended as 06-03-1997, when they were held entitled for minimum of pay scale on the post of Sub-Engineer. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that since the petitioner was also employed as Sub-Engineer in the year 1991 and since he has also been regularized on the post of Sub-Engineer and since he has been drawing regular pay scale on the post of Sub-Engineer w.ef. 24-11-1998, he too is equally entitled for amending the date of his regularization w.e.f. the date when he became entitled to get regular pay scale on the post of Sub- Engineer. Petitioner filed several representations ventilating his grievances before the respondent no. 2; but, all in vain. Hence, this writ petition. 5. I have heard Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Anup Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 12 Sub-Engineers (Civil) were initially employed in the respondent Corporation during the period 1990-91 and, similarly, the petitioner was also employed in the services of the respondent Corporation in the year 1991 on the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil). This fact has virtually been admitted by the respondent Corporation. He submitted that on bare perusal of the order dated 05 March 2013, it becomes clear that the said 12 Sub-Engineers (Civil) were regularized on the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil) in the year 2003 w.e.f. 13-06-2003 under the backlog quota of Other Backward Classes (O.B.C.). This fact has virtually been admitted by the respondent Corporation. He submitted that on bare perusal of the order dated 05 March 2013, it becomes clear that the said 12 Sub-Engineers (Civil) were regularized on the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil) in the year 2003 w.e.f. 13-06-2003 under the backlog quota of Other Backward Classes (O.B.C.). He argued that the petitioner, despite being appointee of the year 1991, was left out on the pretext of the respondent Corporation that there was no vacancy for regularizing the petitioner on the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil) under the general quota, and, therefore, the petitioner had to wait for years together for regularization and, ultimately, he could be regularized on the post of Sub- Engineer (Civil) as late as in the year 2011 w.e.f. 07-12- 2010. He submitted that by order dated 05th March 2013, the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation has amended regularization of as many as 12 Sub-Engineer (Civil) with effect from retrospective date and the petitioner also deserves similar treatment. He submitted that since minimum of pay scale/regular pay scale on the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil) has been granted to the petitioner by the respondent Corporation w.e.f. 24-11-1998 by its own volition, petitioner’s date of regularization should be amended w.e.f. 24-11-1998. He submitted that earlier this Court, vide judgment & order dated 18-08-2015, issued direction to the respondent Corporation to regularize the petitioner on the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 24-11-1998. Against the said judgment, Special Appeal no. 542 of 2015 was filed by the respondents and the said Special Appeal was allowed vide judgment & order dated 10- 01-2017 and the matter was remanded back. He submitted that the stand of the respondent Corporation before this Court has been that only such Sub-Engineers (Civil) have been regularized on post of Civil Engineer (Civil) with retrospective dates, who belong to O.B.C. category and who were regularized earlier under the backlog quota of O.B.C. He submitted that the stand taken by the respondent Corporation before this Court is that no Sub-Engineer (Civil) belonging to General category has been extended the benefit of regularization with retrospective date. He submitted that petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit in the present writ petition in support of his claim for regularization with retrospective date. The petitioner in Para. He submitted that petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit in the present writ petition in support of his claim for regularization with retrospective date. The petitioner in Para. 5 of the supplementary affidavit has stated that a number of Sub-Engineers (Civil), even belonging to General category, have also been extended the benefit of regularization w.e.f. retrospective date. He submitted that one Sub-Engineer (Civil) Sri Gambhir Chandra, was initially regularized on the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 21-03-1991 and the Managing Director of the Corporation by order dated 26-06-2015, has amended the date of regularization of Sri Gambhir Chandra as 05-08-1985. He submitted that similarly regularization orders of other Sub- Engineers have also been amended with retrospective dates. He submitted that it is the case of the petitioner that since a number of Sub-Engineers belonging to O.B.C. category and even belonging to General Category have been extended the benefit of regularization with retrospective dates, in place of subsequent dates of regularization, the petitioner also deserves similar treatment and, therefore, he should be extended similar benefit w.e.f. 24-11-1998, when minimum of pay scale was made admissible to him by the department. He submitted that, as per the Settlement of 1991, only those Sub-Engineers could be regularized w.e.f. 31-07-1991, who had completed 2 years service till 31-07-1991, means, who had entered in the service of the Corporation at least till 31-07- 1989. He submitted that the said 8 Sub Engineers out of total 9, belonging to General category, were extended the benefit of retrospective regularization without resorting to the Settlement of 1991 and, therefore, the petitioner, being similarly situated, is equally entitled for retrospective regularization and to get the date of his regularization amended as 24-11-1998 on the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil), since when he has been drawing regular pay scale on the post of Sub Engineer (Civil). He submitted that if equal treatment is not meted out to the petitioner and the benefit of retrospective regularization is not extended to him, it would mean that the respondent Corporation is in the line of adopting pick and choose policy and promoting discrimination amongst equals; and in that circumstances, it would also amount to an unfair labour practice at the hands of the employer/Corporation. He contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a number of cases, has observed that every employer is expected to behave as a model employer with its employees. He contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a number of cases, has observed that every employer is expected to behave as a model employer with its employees. In order to buttress his argument, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Hindustan Antibiotics Limited Vs. The Workmen & others, reported in AIR 1967 S.C. 948 ; Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1978 S.C. 597 , Workmen of Bhurkunda Colliery of Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Management of Bhurkunda Colliery of Central Coalfields Ltd., reported in (2006) 1 Supreme 545 ; Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam & others Vs. Navin Kumar Saini, reported in 2010 (7) Supreme 361 ; Bhagwan Sahai Carpenter & others Vs. Union of India & another, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1215 , State of Mizoram & another Vs. Mizoram Engineering Service Association & another, reported in 2004 (6) SCC 218 . 7. Per contra, Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the regularization of the services of the petitioner was granted from the date of availability of the vacancy and, as such, the claim of the petitioner that he should be regularized w.e.f. 24.11.1998 is wholly untenable in the eyes of law, as no regularization can be made when there is no vacancy; and regularization can only be made when there is vacancy. He submitted that, on the sanction of the vacancy by the State Government, the services of the petitioner were regularized vide office order no. 61/Pra.(II)/Regularization/RNN/2011 dated 25.1.2011 w.e.f. 07.12.2010. He submitted that, in pursuance to the award passed by the Labour Court, Varanasi dated 19.12.1985 published on 05.04.1986 in Adjudication Case No. 60 of 1984, the services of the daily wagers were regularized after completion of 1 year of service in pursuance to the model standing order vide office order no. 234 dated 05.06.1991. He submitted that the Board of Director, in its 87th Meeting held on 25.10.1994 at item no. 13.1, has decided that the Ad-hoc/daily wager/work charge/muster roll employee will be considered for regularization, if comes within the following category: A. The employee working on Ad-hoc basis and has completed three year of continue service, will be considered first for regularization against the vacant post according to their seniority. 13.1, has decided that the Ad-hoc/daily wager/work charge/muster roll employee will be considered for regularization, if comes within the following category: A. The employee working on Ad-hoc basis and has completed three year of continue service, will be considered first for regularization against the vacant post according to their seniority. B. If any vacancy is left after considering the employee of Clause-A, the employee working on work charge establishment on consolidated salary shall be considered for regularization. C. If after considering the employee detailed in Clause A and B any vacancy is left, the daily wager/muster roll employee will be considered for regularization according to their seniority. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents further submitted that, on 13.6.2003, 13 Sub-Engineers (Civil) belonging to other backward classes were regularized against the backlog quota for O.B.C. Since these employee were regularized under the backlog quota, therefore, the Government, vide its order no.3170 dated 31.1.2013, has regularized their services w.e.f. 1997 on the ground that the employee of Schedule Caste were regularized in the year 1997 and, accordingly, their seniority was fixed vide order no.650 dated 05.03.2013 between 152 to 153 as 152(1) to 152(12). He submitted that, out of these 12 Sub Engineers, Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, Vijay Kumar Verma, Dhaneshwar Yadav and Sri Pankaj Kumar Verma were promoted against the vacant post of Assistant Resident Engineers (Civil) according to their seniority. He submitted that the employees described in para no. 16 of the writ petition were appointed in the year 1990 and 1991 on the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil) on muster roll and their services were regularized on occurrence of the vacancy. He submitted that the employees covered by Writ Petition no.7790 (S/S) of 1991 were regularized vide office order no.234 dated 05.06.1991 in terms of the provisions of model standing order and the regularization of the employee covered by adjudication case no.60 of 1984 passed by Labour Court, Varanasi. He submitted that the petitioner was given the benefit of 6th Pay Commission vide office order no.384 dated 04.05.2010 and these employees were granted the time scale and leave encashment also. He submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed along with exemplary cost. 9. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the papers available on record. He submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed along with exemplary cost. 9. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the papers available on record. In the matter of Bhagwan Sahai Carpenter & others Vs. Union of India & another, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1215 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that by allowing higher scale of pay to employees of some of the trades from an earlier date and giving the same benefit to members of other trades in the skilled grade from a later date will per se be discriminatory and it would be contrary to the equity clause envisaged in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as well as the fundamental right of equal pay for equal work. In the matter of State of Mizoram & another Vs. Mizoram Engineering Service Association & another, reported in 2004 (6) SCC 218 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the State Government cannot be permitted to discriminate between similarly placed individuals holding the post at the time of revision of pay scales and future incumbents of the post. In the matter of Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam & others Vs. Navin Kumar Saini, reported in 2010 (7) Supreme 361 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the respondents ought to have been considered for regularization as LDCs as cases of other similarly situated persons were considered by the Selection Committee. 10. It is true that all employees on equal footing must be given equal treatment. The petitioner’s right to be regularized from back date cannot be denied, as services of other similarly placed employees have been regularized from the back dates. Only question to be answered is whether direction can be issued to regularize the petitioner from the date when there was no vacancy available for general category candidates. The answer is ‘No’. No person can be regularized from the date when there was no vacancy available in the department in that category. In the present case, it is a case of respondents that the date when 12 employees were regularized against O.B.C. vacancies, there was no vacancy available for general category. In such situation, respondents cannot be asked to regularize the petitioner from the date 12 O.B.C. candidates were regularized. In the present case, it is a case of respondents that the date when 12 employees were regularized against O.B.C. vacancies, there was no vacancy available for general category. In such situation, respondents cannot be asked to regularize the petitioner from the date 12 O.B.C. candidates were regularized. In the matter of the petitioner, the Managing Director issued order on 25.01.2011 for regularization of the services of the petitioner from back date w.e.f. 07.12.2010. Case of the respondents is that this benefit has been given to the petitioner from the date when vacancy arose in the department. There is no illegality in the action of the respondents. 11. In view of above discussion, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. 12. There will be no order as to costs.