JUDGMENT : 1. This petition involves a very short, but significant, question for determination, which is: whether the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation can overturn or refuse to obey the decision and approval of its Board of Directors, especially so when he had recommended the matter in his capacity as the Managing Director and happened to be one of the members of the Board of Directors coupled with the fact that the matter stood settled previously? 2. The above question arises in context of the facts narrated hereafter. 3. The petitioner is stated to have passed B.Sc. and is possessing six months’ Diploma in Quality Control & ISO 9000 from All India Institute of Management Studies, Chennai. He was engaged in the respondent Corporation as a Trainee in Quality Control Lab on consolidated stipend. Thereafter, he was deputed to undergo ten days’ training in Quality Control Operations at Asian Laboratories, 88, New Okhla Industrial Complex, New Delhi, in terms of letter no.5914-18 dated 17.12.1998. 4. In March, 2009, the Administrative Officer of the Corporation issued communication no.PS/MD/7713-31 dated 04.03.2009, requiring various Unit heads to depute consolidated engineers working in their Units for appearing in the Screening Test on 17.03.2009 to be conducted by the Committee constituted vide Government order no.523-PW(R&B) of 2008 dated 14.11.2008. Alongwith the said Government order, the Administrative Department of the Corporation enclosed as annexure the list of such consolidated Engineers of Kashmir province. In the said list, the petitioner’s name figured at serial no.22, showing him to be in the Quality Control Unit. In the merit list of the Diploma Holders prepared by the said Committee, the petitioner’s name figured at serial no.2 under the caption ‘Others’ showing his total marks obtained in the Screening Test as 67. It may be mentioned here that the aforesaid Committee comprised of Chief Engineer, R&B Department, Kashmir; (2) Chief Engineer Systems & Operations (PDD), Jammu; (3) Chief Engineer, Mechanical Engineering Department, Kashmir; (4) Managing Director, JKPCC Ltd., Srinagar; and (5) Financial Controller, JKPCC Ltd. Srinagar. 5. The Committee formulated its recommendations, recommending that the matter be placed before the Establishment Sub-Committee for final decision/approval on the basis of qualification, merit and overall experience for permanent absorption of the consolidated basis Engineers in JKPCC in the prescribed graded scales in light of Government order no.523-PW(R&B) dated 14.11.2008. 5. The Committee formulated its recommendations, recommending that the matter be placed before the Establishment Sub-Committee for final decision/approval on the basis of qualification, merit and overall experience for permanent absorption of the consolidated basis Engineers in JKPCC in the prescribed graded scales in light of Government order no.523-PW(R&B) dated 14.11.2008. The Committee, accordingly, submitted its recommendations to the Commissioner/Secretary to Government, PWD (R&B), under endorsement U.O. no.MD/119 dated 19.02.2010 for placing the same before the Establishment Committee. 6. It may be mentioned here that in the aforesaid recommendations, the Committee gave the breakup of the streams against which these 37 consolidated Engineers had appeared before it during the screening test as under:- (A) i Degree Holders (Civil) 17 ii. Degree Holders (Mech.) 03 iii. Degree Holders (Elect.) 05 (B) i. Diploma Holders (Civil) 05 ii. Diploma Holders (Elect.) 02 (C) Diploma Holder in Architecture 02 (D) Diploma Holders in Draftsmanship 01 (E) Diploma Holder in Quality Control 01 7. Most importantly, the Committee in its aforesaid recommendations stated as under:- “In order to adjust all the consolidated basis Engineers in the graded scales against the available posts, a proposal for making adjustment/re-adjustment from the overall vacancies was mooted to the Hon’ble Chairman JKPCC vide U.O. No.PS/MD/193 Dt. 07.12.2009 which stands approved vide U.O. No.PS/HM/R&B/178/09 Dt. 16.12.2009 (copy enclosed as Annexure ‘D’). Accordingly, the position of posts available for absorption of these consolidated basis engineers as per adjustment of equivalent posts is given as under with the graded scale:- Posts Present position of posts Posts to be filled Revised pay scale Pay Band Deputy Manager (Civil) 39 17 9300-34800 4200 Deputy Manager (Mech.) 04 03 -do- 4200 Deputy Manager (Elect.) 06 06 -do- 4200 Asstt. Manager (Civil) 05 05 -do- 2800 Asstt. Manager (Mech.) 03 - -do- 2800 Asstt. Manager (Elect.) 02 02 -do- 2800 Draftsman 06 01 -do- 2800 Asstt. Manager (Archit.) 02 02 -do- 2800 Asstt. Manager (Quality Control) 01 01 -do- 2800 Consequent to the above, the Company Secretary of the Corporation submitted a detailed note/proposal to the Managing Director. In para 4 thereof he stated as under:- “4. All the screened consolidated engineers of the stream of Civil, Mechanical and Electrical need to be adjusted as Deputy Managers/Asstt. Managers (Civil, Mech. Manager (Quality Control) 01 01 -do- 2800 Consequent to the above, the Company Secretary of the Corporation submitted a detailed note/proposal to the Managing Director. In para 4 thereof he stated as under:- “4. All the screened consolidated engineers of the stream of Civil, Mechanical and Electrical need to be adjusted as Deputy Managers/Asstt. Managers (Civil, Mech. & Elect.) in the prescribed pay scale as per Corporation norms against the vacant posts as per their qualification and subject to production of original certificates as may be required. It may be mentioned here that while adjusting these consolidated engineers, the Corporation is required to adjust remaining 7 candidates having the qualification of Degree/Diploma in electrical/civil/architectural and one of the candidates possessing Diploma in Quality Control. It is proposed that for their adjustment equivalent posts of Dy. Manager (Civil) may be reduced in JKPCC and re-designated as Dy. Manager/Asstt. Manager (Elect./Civil/Architectural/Quality Control) so that all the screened candidates shall be adjusted properly and the court orders implemented accordingly. It may be added that even after reducing the desired 7 posts of Dy. Managers (Civil), 21 posts shall remain still vacant in JKPCC. As such submitted for approval please.” (Underlining supplied) 8. The Managing Director of the Corporation, vide his endorsement no.PS/MD/193 dated 07.12.2009 submitted the proposal to the Commissioner/Secretary to Government, R&B, who, in turn, submitted it, vide endorsement no.PS/CS/R&B/953/09 dated 16.12.2009, to the Minister for R&B, who also happened to be the Chairman of the Board of Directors, with the following endorsement:- “May approve the proposed action. However the same may also be got ratified from the B. O. D. subsequently”. The Minister/Chairman, BOD, approved the proposal and returned it to the Commissioner/Secretary vide endorsement dated 18.12.2009 who, in turn, endorsed it to the Managing Director on 24.12.2009. 9. Thereafter, the Managing Director, J&K Projects Construction Corporation Ltd., issued order no. However the same may also be got ratified from the B. O. D. subsequently”. The Minister/Chairman, BOD, approved the proposal and returned it to the Commissioner/Secretary vide endorsement dated 18.12.2009 who, in turn, endorsed it to the Managing Director on 24.12.2009. 9. Thereafter, the Managing Director, J&K Projects Construction Corporation Ltd., issued order no. Estt/117 of 2011 dated 12.02.2011, stating it to be pursuant to the directions of the High Court in various writ petitions pending before it and as approved by the Board of Directors of the Corporation in its 85th meeting held on 22.11.2010 vide item no.85.01(B), whereby the consolidated engineers of various streams of the Corporation, screened by the Screening Committee, were regularized and placed in the graded scales plus other allowances as admissible to the Corporation on the analogy of one Saleem Jan, The petitioner’s name figures at serial no.4 under the caption ‘others’ at page 2nd of Annexure ‘A’ to the aforesaid order. He was, however, shown regularized and placed on the post of Quality Control Assistant in the Scale of Rs.5200-20200 plus Grade Pay of Rs.2400 and a condition to the following effect incorporated against his name:- “Subject to rectification of his name as per his credentials besides verification of his diploma from concerned authority whether his diploma certificate shall be treated at par with 3 years diploma in engineering course.” 10. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid order, the petitioner is stated to have submitted representations dated 19.01.2012, 14.06.2012, 07.08.2012, 13.05.2013, 07.05.2016 for redressal of his grievances, but with no fruitful result. Consequently, he filed this writ petition before this Court. 11. The grievance of the petitioner is that whereas the Screening Committee, on the basis of his qualification and performance before it, recommended him to be placed against the post of Assistant Manager (Quality Control) in the graded pay scale of Rs. Consequently, he filed this writ petition before this Court. 11. The grievance of the petitioner is that whereas the Screening Committee, on the basis of his qualification and performance before it, recommended him to be placed against the post of Assistant Manager (Quality Control) in the graded pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.2800, consequent upon which the Company Secretary of the Corporation made a proposal on the same lines which was approved by the Managing Director, the Commissioner/Secretary R&B, and the Minister for R&B in his capacity as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Corporation which was further approved by the Board of Directors of the Corporation, vide item no.85.01(B), in its 85th meeting held on 22.11.2010, it was neither within the competence of the Managing Director, to place him in a lower post with lower grade than recommended, proposed and approved all through by the competent authorities, including the Board of Directors of the Corporation and, thereby partly refuse to act upon, or alter, the decision of the Board of Directors of the Corporation, to the serious prejudice of the petitioner’s rights and career. 12. The petitioner has, thus, filed this writ petition on the grounds taken therein challenging the order no.Estt/117 of 2011 dated 12.02.2011 to the extent it orders his regularization in the post of Quality Control Assistant in the pay scale of 5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs.2400 instead of placing him in the post of Assistant Manager (Quality Control) in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 (GP Rs.2800) together with the condition incorporated against his name, as quoted above. The petitioner has further sought a Mandamus to command the respondents to regularize him on the post of Dy. Manager (Quality Control) in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 (GP 4200) or Assistant Manager (Quality Control) in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 (GP 2800) retrospectively with effect from 12.02.2011 with all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary and seniority at the appropriate place. 13. Manager (Quality Control) in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 (GP 4200) or Assistant Manager (Quality Control) in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 (GP 2800) retrospectively with effect from 12.02.2011 with all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary and seniority at the appropriate place. 13. The respondents in their reply have stated that since the petitioner’s certificates transpired that he had undergone a certificate course in Quality Control ISO 9000 for six months which is not equal to three years’ Diploma in Quality Control/Engineering, therefore, he was not placed in the graded scale of engineers vide order no.117 dated 12.02.2011, and that the condition was imposed in the said order against the petitioner’s name that his placement was only subject to verification of credentials and whether his certificate course of six months in Quality Control could be treated equivalent to three years Diploma in Engineering. It is further averred in the reply that the other similar persons engaged had been only placed in the graded scale after verifying their credentials and recognition of the Institution, besides having Degree/Diploma in relevant field of Engineering, and that the petitioner’s certificate course of six months was not falling under the norms prescribed for placement as Assistant Manager in the said grade. It is stated that the post of Assistant Manager, Quality Control, was, in fact, approved by the Board of Directors on the impression that the petitioner possessed three years’ Diploma which was being shown in the records as Diploma in Quality Control, but he was only having a short term six months’ Management course through correspondence in Quality Control ISO 9000. In the reply, it is admitted that in 88th meeting of the Board of Directors, the proposal/adjustment of 37 consolidated Engineers, who were initially inducted in the Corporation as Trainees and then brought on consolidated cadre, in the graded scale was approved wherein the post of Assistant Manager, Quality Control, was also approved. In the reply, it is admitted that in 88th meeting of the Board of Directors, the proposal/adjustment of 37 consolidated Engineers, who were initially inducted in the Corporation as Trainees and then brought on consolidated cadre, in the graded scale was approved wherein the post of Assistant Manager, Quality Control, was also approved. It is stated that in the meantime “this office”, meaning the office of Managing Director, came to know that the petitioner was not having three years’ Diploma in Quality Control; therefore, while the order for absorption/adjustment of the 37 candidates was issued, the petitioner was adjusted only in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of 2400, with the rider placed against his name stating “subject to rectification of his name as per his credentials besides verification of his Diploma from concerned Authority whether his Diploma certificate shall be treated at par with 03 years Diploma in Engineering course.”. It is averred that the petitioner failed to submit any concrete supportive document. In the same breath, at page 9 of the reply, it is stated that the course details were downloaded from the said Institute’s Website which proved that the Institute offers only short terms six month’s management Diploma course in Quality Control ISO 9000, as such his case was not considered. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through their respective pleadings, I have considered the matter. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel vehemently relied upon their respective pleadings. Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically invited the attention of the Court to the order issued by respondent no.1 under endorsement no.10597-10600 dated 28.10.2006 pursuant to the judgment of the Court dated 19.10.2005 in the petitioner’s earlier writ petition, SWP no.872/2003, annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P5. 15. As noted above, the case of the petitioner is simple, that being a Diploma Holder in Quality Control, he was subjected to screening test, alongwith other consolidated trainees, by the Committee of Officers comprising Chief Engineer, R&B Department, Kashmir; Chief Engineer Systems & Operations (PDD), Jammu; Chief Engineer, Mechanical Engineering Department, Kashmir; Managing Director, JKPCC Ltd., Srinagar; and Financial Controller, JKPCC Ltd. Srinagar, constituted under Government order no.523-PW(R&B) of 2008 dated 14.11.2008, and was recommended for permanent absorption in the prescribed graded scale in light of Government order no.523-PW(R&B) of 2008 dated 14.11.2008. On receipt of such recommendations, the Company Secretary of the Corporation made a proposal specifically mentioning therein that one of the candidates possessing Diploma in Quality Control may be adjusted against the post of Assistant Manager Quality Control. This note was approved all through by all competent authorities, including the Board of Directors of the Corporation. In light of these glaring facts, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that it was not competent for the Managing Director to refuse to act upon the decision approved by the Board of Directors, and, thereby, discriminate the petitioner. 16. The stand of the respondents is that the approval was accorded to the petitioner’s placement as Assistant Manager on the impression that he possessed three years’ Diploma; whereas that was not true, and that such six months’ certificate course could not be treated equivalent to three years’ Diploma in Quality Control. According to the respondents, it is on that ground that the approval of the Board of Directors was not implemented in his case. 17. It is curious to note that in the impugned order the condition imposed against the name of the petitioner was that his placement was subject to verification from the concerned authority whether his diploma certificate shall be treated at par with 3 years diploma in engineer course. Respondents have not brought anything on record to even remotely suggest that they took any such step of verifying the said certificate, yet in the reply it is stated that such six months’ certificate course could not be treated equivalent to three years’ Diploma in Quality Control. This is one aspect of the matter, demonstrating total arbitrary approach on behalf of the respondents. 18. The other and the most important aspect is that the petitioner has placed on record of the writ petition, an order issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation under endorsement no.10597-10600 dated 28.10.2006 which has been passed in compliance of Court order dated 19.10.2005 passed in the petitioner’s earlier writ petition, SWP no.872 of 2003 to which, as mentioned earlier, the learned counsel for the petitioner specifically drew the attention of the Court. This order makes it axiomatic that the matter concerning the stand taken by the respondents now, stands settled and closed for ever pursuant to the said Court order. This order makes it axiomatic that the matter concerning the stand taken by the respondents now, stands settled and closed for ever pursuant to the said Court order. The order then passed by the Corporation assumes relevance and is, therefore, extracted hereunder:- “1. Whereas a list of trainee engineers engaged in JKPCC from time to time was framed and furnished to Administrative Department/Hon’ble Chairman JKPCC for accord of approval to the enhancement of monthly stipend @ Rs.5000.00 per month on consolidated cadre in the year 2002. 2. Whereas the approval of Administrative Department/Hon’ble Chairman, JKPCC was received which included the name of Shri Fayazullah at S. No.56. 3. Whereas orders for enhancement of monthly stipend at the rate Rs.5000.00 were issued in favour of 37 engineers having degree/diploma in various fields vide this office No.7857-81 dated 30.10.2002 followed by issuance of similar orders in favour of few other trainees after proper verification. 4. Whereas the enhancement of wages in respect of Shri Fayaz Ullah having diploma in Quality Control was pending for want of verification of his diploma in Quality Control besides ascertaining whether said diploma is recognized as per norms of the concerned Institution who have granted diploma in the instant case and State Government. 5. Whereas the matter for verification of certificate was taken up with concerned institution who have certified the said diploma which was placed in the original personal file of the incumbent which is not traceable from the records for which enquiry is to be conducted separately. 6. Whereas aggrieved of delay in issuance of orders in favour of Shri Fayaz Ullah, he approached the Hon’ble High Court through SWP 872 of 2003. 7. Whereas the Hon’ble High Court J&K Srinagar passed direction on 19.10.2005 to consider the petitioner’s claim at par with other diploma holders like him including the list of 37 placed in the category of consolidated stipend. 8. Whereas this organization has been given a time frame of three months to consider the case of the petitioner which has already expired, when the matter has been abnormally delayed because of in-availability of the personal file of the petitioner making the office apprehensive of any adverse orders of the Hon’ble Court for non-compliance of its orders as has taken place in some cases recently. Now, therefore, in view of the Court directions passed on 19.10.2005 and to avoid the contempt of court, sanction is accorded to release of monthly consolidated stipend of Rs.5000.00 with effect from 30.10.2002, i.e., from the date the same has been allowed to other diploma/degree holders vide order No.7857-81 dated 30.10.2002 in favour of the petitioner namely Shri Fayaz Ullah.” (Underlining supplied) 19. It, thus, transpires from the aforesaid order dated 28.10.2006 that the Administrative Department and Chairman JKPCC had approved enhancement of monthly stipend @ Rs.5,000.00 per month to consolidated cadre of the Corporation, which included the name of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the Corporation issued orders for enhancement of the monthly stipend in favour of 37 degree/diploma holders in various fields by order dated 30.10.2002 followed by issuance of similar orders in favour of few other trainees. Insofar as the petitioner was concerned, his stipend was not enhanced for want of verification of his diploma in Quality Control as well as to ascertain whether the diploma possessed by the petitioner was recognised as per norms of the concerned Institution and the State Government. In paragraph 5 of the aforesaid order, it is clearly stated that the matter for verification of the certificate was taken up with the concerned institution who certified the said diploma. The contents of para 7 of the order reveal that the High Court had passed a direction on 19.10.2005 to consider the petitioner’s claim at par with other diploma holders included in the list of 37 persons placed in the category of consolidated stipend. The respondents implemented the order of the Court without any demur, treating the petitioner at par with other diploma holders after having got his certificate verified by the concerned Institute. There is nothing on record of this petition to even remotely suggest that the respondent Corporation was aggrieved of such order of the Court which directed it to treat the petitioner at par with other diploma holders for purposes of grant of wages/stipend to him. If the respondent-Corporation was of the view that the petitioner could not be treated at par with other diploma holders, it ought to have challenged that order of the Court in appeal. If the respondent-Corporation was of the view that the petitioner could not be treated at par with other diploma holders, it ought to have challenged that order of the Court in appeal. They have not done so; instead, they have got the certificate of the petitioner verified from the concerned Institute and then implemented the judgment, treating the petitioner at par with other diploma holders working in the Corporation. That being so, the judgment rendered by the Court in the petitioner’s earlier writ petition, SWP no.872 of 2003, decided on 19.10.2005, which as per their own showing in the order dated 28.10.2006, directed the respondent-Corporation to treat the petitioner at par with other diploma holders, has attained finality and so has the issue concerning the treatment of the petitioner at par with other diploma holders attained finality. The respondent-Corporation having accepted the judgment and implemented it in letter and spirit, without any demur, and having treated the petitioner’s diploma at par with other diploma holders working in the Corporation, cannot now be allowed to rake over the issue and dispute the diploma held by the petitioner. 20. In view of the above, the matter is held to have been settled, concluded and given a quietus by the fact of implementation of the Court’s judgment dated 19.10.2005 passed in the petitioner’s earlier writ petition, SWP no.872/2003. This Court, therefore, is neither required, nor does it need, to go into the issue now sought to be raised about the type of diploma held by the petitioner. 21. In light of the above, and apart from that, the respondents have not brought any norm, rule or practice to the notice of the Court to show that the Managing Director of the Corporation could revise, reverse or upset the decision or approval of the Board of Directors and its Chairman or refuse to act pursuant to any such approval or decision of the Board of Directors and its Chairman, more so when the proposal pursuant to the recommendation of the Screening Committee was made by the Company Secretary of the Corporation and approved by the Managing Director himself, coupled with the fact that he himself has been a member of the Board of Directors. The question raised in the very first para of this judgment is, therefore, answered in negative. 22. The question raised in the very first para of this judgment is, therefore, answered in negative. 22. Consequently, since the petitioner already stands treated at par with the other diploma holders in the Corporation in terms of the order dated 28.10.2006 passed by respondent no.1 in implementation of the Court order dated 19.10.2005 passed by the Court in the petitioner’s earlier writ petition, SWP no.872/2003, the action of the Managing Director in not granting him the approved service benefit of adjustment/regularisation against the post of Assistant Manager in the graded scale of Rs.9300-34800 plus GP of Rs.2800, as has been granted to other diploma holders in the Corporation, is hit by the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. For the same reason, the condition imposed against his name is unwarranted, being contrary to the respondents’ own order dated 28.10.2006. 23. In view of all what is narrated and discussed above, this petition deserves to be allowed. However, given the fact that the order of regularization/adjustment of the consolidated staff was issued on 12.02.2011 and the petitioner has not worked on the post of Assistant Manager, he cannot be given consequential financial benefit from the retrospective date by release of the graded pay from that date. 24. This petition is, accordingly, allowed and order no.Estt/117 of 2011 dated 12.02.2011 together with its annexure ‘A’ issued by the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation is quashed to the extent it seeks to regularize the petitioner on the post of Quality Control Assistant and place him in the graded scale of Rs.5200-20200 (GP 2400) instead of regularising him against the post of Assistant Manager and placing him in the graded scale of 9300-34800 with GP of Rs.2800.00. Resultantly, the respondents in general, and respondent no.1 in particular, are directed to regularise the petitioner against the post of Assistant Manager and place him in the graded scale of 9300-34800 with GP of Rs.2800.00 on the analogy of other diploma holders with whom, as already mentioned, he stands treated at par. Such regularization and placement in the graded scale of the petitioner shall, however, be made notionally from the date of issue of the order no.Estt/117 of 2011 dated 12.02.2011 for purposes of fixation of his seniority and the grade shall be released prospectively from the date of this judgment. Such regularization and placement in the graded scale of the petitioner shall, however, be made notionally from the date of issue of the order no.Estt/117 of 2011 dated 12.02.2011 for purposes of fixation of his seniority and the grade shall be released prospectively from the date of this judgment. It is, however, made clear that his pay shall be fixed at a stage in the graded pay scale at which he would otherwise have been, had he been granted such graded scale alongwith others pursuant to order dated 12.02.2011. Consequently, the respondent-Corporation would not need to pay any arrears of pay to the petitioner. Since the petitioner has been fighting for his rights for last seven years, the needful, as aforesaid, shall be done by respondent no.1 within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this judgment is served by the petitioner on the Company Secretary of the Corporation. 25. The interim direction, if any, subsisting, shall abide by the final decision in the main petition. This also disposes of MP no.02/2018. 26. No order as to costs.