Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1048 (ALL)

A. P. Trivedi v. State of U. P.

2024-04-12

J.J.MUNIR

body2024
JUDGMENT : J.J. Munir, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.12.2013 passed by the Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited, Lucknow (for short, 'the Corporation'), declining the petitioner's claim to be regularized on the post of an Office Assistant-I w.e.f. 27.3.1997, the date he was regularized in service as an Office Assistant-II. The petitioner also seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Managing Director of the Corporation to regularize the petitioner on the post of Office Assistant-I w.e.f. 27.3.1997 and pay him the difference in emoluments as well as consequential benefits, within a period of time to be determined by this Court. 2. The petitioner's case, in substance, is that he was retained as an Office Assistant by the Corporation on muster roll. No appointment letter was issued, but his name was mentioned in the muster roll maintained by the Corporation. The petitioner describes his retention on the muster roll as an 'appointment' and says that he performed his duties to the best of his abilities with devotion and sincerity. During the entire period of his service, there was neither an adverse entry awarded nor any complaint against him. Rather, his performance was appreciated and letters to that effect issued by various functionaries of the Corporation. The list of daily-wagers, working in the Zonal Office, was required by the Zonal Manager, Headquarters. Accordingly, a list was drawn up by the Corporation and in the list aforesaid, details of muster roll employees, working in the General Manager's office (South-Eastern Zone, Allahabad) were shown. The list was sent to the General Manager, Headquarters by the General Manager, SEZ, Allahabad under a covering memo dated 16.3.1988. In the said list, the petitioner's name was shown at Sr. No. 3 indicating that the petitioner was working with the Corporation since 9.7.1985, a period of two years eight months. A quick look at the said list shows that the petitioner was working on a daily-wage of Rs. 25/-. Subsequently, the petitioner points out that a seniority list of muster roll Office Assistants was drawn up by the Manager (Personnel) and forwarded by the General Manager (Personnel) to the various General Managers of the Corporation at different stations, including Lucknow, Delhi, Bareilly, Dehradoon and Allahabad as the final seniority list, where the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 35. 3. No. 35. 3. The petitioner says that he was discharging his duties as an Office Assistant continuously since the year 1991. The respondents divided the post of Office Assistants into two categories, to wit, Office Assistant Grade-I and Office Assistant Grade-II. It is the petitioner's case that notwithstanding his continuous service since the year 1991, he was neither considered for regularization nor paid his salary in the pay-scale of a regular Office Assistant Grade-I. The Senior Manager (Personnel-II) circulated a notice for the purpose of finalizing a seniority list of muster roll stenographers, office assistants and certain other employees. The personnel working on the muster roll were required to furnish necessary documents for consideration of their claim for regularization. The notice aforesaid dated 6.3.1995, that was published by the Senior Manager (Personnel-II), Lucknow, shows the petitioner's name at Sr. No. 15. In response to the notice aforesaid, the petitioner handed over the certificate issued to him by the then Staff Officer dated 19.10.1989, showing his date of appointment as an Office Assistant on the muster roll. This was done within two days of the notice published by the Senior Manager (Personnel-II). 4. A representation was also addressed by the petitioner to the Managing Director of the Corporation, carrying a request that the petitioner's relevant service record, together with experience certificate, detailed in his representation dated 23.12.1995, may be forwarded to the Headquarters in order that he may get his seniority w.e.f. 9.7.1985. The said representation was forwarded alongwith a report pertaining to the petitioner's services by the General Manager to the Headquarters. Despite receipt of the relevant material pertaining to the petitioner's services as well as evidence about his continuous service rendered w.e.f. 9.7.1985, entitling him to be regularized on the post of an Office Assistant, it is the petitioner's case that for reasons best known to the respondents, his case was not considered, nor was he provided salary in the pay-scale of a regular Office Assistant Grade-I. The petitioner pleads that there was no justification on the respondents' part in discriminating between two sets of employees, to wit, one set of employees placed in the regular pay-scale and others like the petitioner not so placed, though both sets of employees were discharging identical duties. According to the petitioner, this is an arbitrary action in violation of the principle that the State Government were following, to wit, the pay-scale had to be the same unless the rank and cadre was different. 5. The petitioner says that muster roll employees, including drivers, stenographers, messengers and office assistants, faced with their non-regularization in service, raised an industrial dispute through their recognized Union, which was for the benefit of the 40 employees mentioned there. The following question was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court (translated into English from Hindi): ''Whether the employers should declare permanent their workmen, whose names are enumerated in the list? If yes, the concerned workmen are entitled to be declared permanent from which date and with what other relief?'' 6. The Labour Court, by its award dated 19.12.1985, published on 29.3.1986, in Adjudication Case No. 60 of 1984, declared that each of the workmen shown in the list is entitled to be declared permanent after expiry of one year from the date of their respective appointments, indicated in the list. 7. This Court may remark here that the petitioner was not a party to the aforesaid industrial dispute or a beneficiary under the award last mentioned. 8. The respondent-employers, aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, filed a writ petition before the Lucknow Bench of this Court, being Writ Petition No. 4231 of 1986. The employers' writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 10.4.1990. The petitioner says that despite the award of the Labour Court dated 19.12.1985, the concerned employees, working in the same capacity as the petitioner, were regularized, which he quaintly chooses to describe as 'not on regular basis but under muster roll'. The order regularizing the services of the muster roll employees, in whose favour the award was made, was passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation on 5.6.1991. A perusal of the said order shows that these employees have been regularized with effect from the date one year after their employment on daily-wages in accordance with the award. The petitioner says that since the award of the Labour Court was not fully complied with, the concerned employees filed Writ Petition No. 7790 (S/S) of 1991 before the Lucknow Bench of this Court. The petitioner says that since the award of the Labour Court was not fully complied with, the concerned employees filed Writ Petition No. 7790 (S/S) of 1991 before the Lucknow Bench of this Court. The said writ petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 11.8.1993, against which a Special Leave Petition, carried by the respondent-employers to the Supreme Court, was dismissed on 22.7.1994. It is then averred that in compliance with the judgment and order dated 11.8.1993, a list of muster roll employees was drawn up, regularizing their services on their respective posts, with a direction for payment of salary in the regular pay-scale w.e.f. 1.3.1995. The said order was passed on 7.8.1995. 9. This Court may remark at this stage that the deficiency in compliance with the Labour Court's award discernible appears to be about the regular pay-scale being granted to the concerned employees, which seems not to have been granted in compliance with the Labour Court's award. It came about after this Court enforced the terms of the award. After the muster roll employees were placed in the regular pay-scale, the claim of other employees was also considered and one Prabhakar Misra was regularized by the Managing Director of the Corporation w.e.f. 17.1.1980, granting him the regular pay-scale of an Office Assistant Grade-I vide orders dated 30.3.1996 and 15.6.1996. The petitioner addressed several representations to the respondents, seeking consideration of his claim in the years 1994, 1995, and, ultimately on 30.3.1996, he claims to have sent a last reminder to the respondents. The petitioner claimed regularization as well as payment of salary in the pay-scale of a regular Office Assistant Grade-I, inasmuch as he performed the same duties as a regular Officer Assistant Grade-I. The petitioner has pleaded that an Office Assistant Grade-I was placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 1350-30-1440-40-1800-EB-50-2200/-, receiving Rs. 5000/- per month, whereas the petitioner, discharging identical duties on the muster roll, was receiving a sum of Rs. 2100/- per month. He pleaded that it was a clear case of discrimination. When no action was forthcoming, the petitioner instituted Writ-A No. 28703 of 1996, claiming the following reliefs: ''A- issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents specially the respondent No. 2 to regularize the petitioner on the post of Office Assistant, (AG-I), w.e.f. 9.7.1986 alongwith consequential benefits accrued thereon. When no action was forthcoming, the petitioner instituted Writ-A No. 28703 of 1996, claiming the following reliefs: ''A- issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents specially the respondent No. 2 to regularize the petitioner on the post of Office Assistant, (AG-I), w.e.f. 9.7.1986 alongwith consequential benefits accrued thereon. B. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to pay the salary to the petitioner in the pay-scale of regular office Assistant (AG-I) w.e.f. 9.7.1986 regularly and as and when it falls due.'' 10. It appears that pending this writ petition, the respondents regularized the petitioner's services by an order dated 27.3.1997, which was brought on record of Writ-A No. 28703 of 1996 through a supplementary counter-affidavit filed in the aforesaid writ petition. The petitioner, vide order dated 27.3.1997, was placed in the pay-scale of Office Assistant Grade-II, to wit, Rs. 1026-1700/-, whereas the petitioner was qualified and entitled to be placed in the higher pay-scale of Office Assistant Grade-I, that is to say, Rs. 1350-2200/-, as he asserts. 11. Two similarly situate employees like the petitioner, Satya Prakash Srivastava and Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, also muster roll employees, instituted Writ-A No. 6536 of 1996 with a case that they were working as muster roll Office Assistants for a long time, but their services were not regularized. They claimed the same salary as that payable to regular Office Assistants, pleading discrimination. It was also their case that services of employees on the muster roll, junior to those petitioners, had been regularized and they were receiving salary equivalent to other regular employees. The said writ petition, brought by Satya Prakash Srivastava and Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, was allowed by this Court by a judgment and order dated 11.4.2000 in the following terms: ''The petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to modify the order dated 27.3.97 (Annexure 1 to the amendment application) and to place him on the post of Karyalaya Sahayak in the pay-scale of Rs. 1350-Rs.2200/- at least from the date of the aforesaid order. The respondents are further directed to consider the regularisation of the petitioner No. 2 and in case he is found fit for regularisation of his service, he may be given regular pay-scale of Rs. 1350-Rs.2200/- from the date of this order.'' 12. 1350-Rs.2200/- at least from the date of the aforesaid order. The respondents are further directed to consider the regularisation of the petitioner No. 2 and in case he is found fit for regularisation of his service, he may be given regular pay-scale of Rs. 1350-Rs.2200/- from the date of this order.'' 12. The petitioner's writ petition being Writ-A No. 28703 of 1996, came up before the Court on 25.7.2013 and allowed, considering the judgment passed in Satya Prakash Srivastava (supra) in the following terms: ''Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner regarding regularisation and modification of the order dated 27.3.1997 to regularise the petitioner on the post of Office Assistant Grade I, after giving opportunity, in terms of the judgment passed in aforesaid writ petition of Satya Prakash Srivastava, which was allowed on 11.4.2000, expeditiously and a suitable order will be passed, in accordance with law, preferably within two months after furnishing certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.'' 13. It is the petitioner's case that he served a copy of the judgment and order dated 25.7.2013 upon the Managing Director of the Corporation, who, by the order impugned in the present writ petition dated 13.12.2013, rejected the petitioner's claim to be placed on the post of an Office Assistant Grade-I and award of the pay-scale attached to the said post. The impugned order is assailed as illegal and one founded on non-existent grounds. It is pleaded by the petitioner that in the final seniority list of Office Assistants Grade-II, published on 22.1.2013, the petitioner's name finds place at Sr. No. 38 whereas that of Satya Prakash Srivastava at Sr. No. 43. It is also the petitioner's case that in compliance with the order dated 11.4.2000 passed by this Court in Satya Prakash Srivastava's case, he has been placed on the post of an Office Assistant Grade-I, but not paid that pay-scale. He too has been discriminated. The petitioner essentially pleads discrimination and says that juniors to him have been regularized on the post of Office Assistant Grade-I and paid the pay-scale attached to that post, whereas the petitioner has been regularized on a lower post and deprived of the higher post as well as the higher pay-scale, though he is entitled to it. 14. The petitioner essentially pleads discrimination and says that juniors to him have been regularized on the post of Office Assistant Grade-I and paid the pay-scale attached to that post, whereas the petitioner has been regularized on a lower post and deprived of the higher post as well as the higher pay-scale, though he is entitled to it. 14. A notice of motion was issued on 1.7.2014. A counter-affidavit dated 2.7.2014 was filed on 16.7.2014. A supplementary-affidavit dated 8.6.2017 was filed on 19.8.2017, bringing on record a copy of the order dated 23.12.2015 passed in Special Appeal No. 1061 of 2009, preferred by the respondents against the judgment and order dated 11.4.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in favour of Satya Prakash Srivastava in Writ-A No. 6536 of 1996. After 1.7.2014, the petition came up before the Court for the first time on 15.9.2023, and on the above state of pleadings, it was admitted to hearing, which proceeded forthwith. It was heard on 15.9.2023, adjourned without a hearing on 3.10.2023, and finally heard on 13.10.2023, when judgment was reserved. 15. Heard Mr. A. P. Tewari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vivek Saran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 and Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1. 16. It submitted by Mr. A.P. Tewari, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is senior to Satya Prakash Srivastava, who has been regularized on the post of an Office Assistant Grade-I under orders of this Court dated 11.4.2000 passed in Writ-A No. 6536 of 1996. The respondents' Special Appeal from the said judgment being, Special Appeal No. 1061 of 2009, has been dismissed by the Division Bench on 23.5.2015. Since Satya Prakash Srivastava is junior to the petitioner, he is entitled to the same benefit and regularization on the post of the Office Assistant Grade-I; not Grade-II. It is emphasized that the fact that the petitioner is senior to Satya Prakash Srivastava is not in dispute. Mr. Tewari has drawn the Court's attention to the seniority list of Office Assistant Grade-II dated 22.1.2013, annexed as Annexure 18 to the writ petition and points out that the petitioner's name finds place at Sr. No. 38 of the said list, whereas that of Satya Prakash Srivastava at Sr. No. 43. 17. Mr. Tewari has drawn the Court's attention to the seniority list of Office Assistant Grade-II dated 22.1.2013, annexed as Annexure 18 to the writ petition and points out that the petitioner's name finds place at Sr. No. 38 of the said list, whereas that of Satya Prakash Srivastava at Sr. No. 43. 17. The submission is that notwithstanding the fact that Satya Prakash Srivastava being junior to the petitioner and the orders by this Court passed on 25.7.2013 in Writ-A No. 28703 of 1996, to consider the petitioner's claim regarding regularization and modification of the order dated 27.3.1997 to the extent of regularizing the petitioner on the post of an Office Assistant Grade-I, after affording opportunity in terms of the judgment passed in the writ petition of Satya Prakash Srivastava, allowed on 11.4.2000, the respondents have declined to place the petitioner in Grade-I, though Satya Prakash Srivastava has been given that grade in deference to the judgment of this Court passed in his favour, upheld in appeal by the Division Bench, renders the impugned order discriminatory and bad in law. It is submitted that the aforesaid position leads to a patent discriminatory determination by the respondents and an anomalous situation, where a junior has been regularized as Office Assistant Grade-I, whereas the petitioner has been denied that benefit. 18. Mr. Vivek Saran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 points out that the employees of the Corporation are governed by the Working Manual. The said Manual provides that the Corporation's work be done through Piece Rates Worker. Paragraph No. 4 of the Working Manual describes a Piece Rates Worker as follows: ''There will be Piece Rated Workers (PRW) who will arrange for the necessary labour and manage to take work out of them on output basis. Nirman Nigam's staff will not have any direct dealings with the labourers employed by the P.R.W., and will exercise supervision over the P.R.W., and through him on the labour. P.R.W. will be duty bound to measure the work done by the labour employed by him at frequent intervals, and make payment to the labour on the basis of their joint output, failing which Nirman Nigam's supervisory Technical Staff shall get the same measured. P.R.W. will be duty bound to measure the work done by the labour employed by him at frequent intervals, and make payment to the labour on the basis of their joint output, failing which Nirman Nigam's supervisory Technical Staff shall get the same measured. P.R.W. is neither a Contractor nor a Sub-Contractor, and will generally be an experienced person in Construction Industry, but preferably of small means, so that Nirman Nigam's policy of encouraging competent persons of limited means, is fulfilled to mutual advantage in the field.'' 19. The State Government vide a Government Order dated 5.10.1988 provided that all persons, working on daily-wages through contractors, be taken on rolls of the Corporation. Thus, the practice of hiring piece rater workers came to an end. In this connection, Mr. Saran has invited the attention of the Court to paragraph No. 13 of the counter-affidavit and Annexure CA-1. It is next submitted by the learned Counsel for the Corporation that the State Government also sanctioned 25 posts of Office Assistant Grade-II in the pay-scale of Rs. 460-640/-. In this connection, the learned Counsel has drawn the Court's attention to the Government Order dated 26.6.1989, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure CA-3 to the counter-affidavit. 20. It is argued that prior to 1989, there were two posts in the Corporation's establishment, to wit, Head Assistant and Senior Office Assistant. This nomenclature was changed to Office Assistant Grade-I and Office Assistant Grade-II. Mr. Saran submits that the feeding cadre to the post of Office Assistant Grade-I was Office Assistant Grade-II. The post of Office Assistant Grade-I is to be filled up through promotion, whereas the post of Office Assistant Grade-II is to be filled up by direct appointment. In this connection, Mr. Saran has drawn the Court's attention to an office order dated 25.2.1989 issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation, pursuant to orders of the Government, carried in paragraph No. 2 of GO No. 1151(i) SIBI/87-23 Sani-8-37 Si Bi/80 dated 18.3.1987. By the said order, the post of Head Assistant and Senior Office Assistant were abolished and the Personnel Section of the Corporation was re-structured. This was done in accordance with a resolution of the Corporation's Board adopted in its 64th Meeting under Item No. 9. The meeting was held on 21.1.1989. By the said order, the post of Head Assistant and Senior Office Assistant were abolished and the Personnel Section of the Corporation was re-structured. This was done in accordance with a resolution of the Corporation's Board adopted in its 64th Meeting under Item No. 9. The meeting was held on 21.1.1989. It is pointed out that Appendix B in Column 5 shows the post of Office Assistant Grade-I to be filled up through promotion from amongst Office Assistant Grade-II. The submission, therefore, is that the post of Office Assistant Grade-I was not available for direct recruitment and a fortiori, for regularization, inasmuch as after 25.2.1989, this post was re-designated from the former Head Assistant and became a promotion post. 21. It is also argued that when the order dated 27.3.1997 was passed, the petitioner was regularized on the post of Office Assistant Grade-II, on the basis of seniority of muster roll employees and he accepted the appointment, giving his consent to the terms and conditions. He is now estopped from turning around. 22. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 23. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner has been denied regularization on the post of an Office Assistant Grade-I, amongst others, on the ground that the post of Office Assistant Grade-I is a promotion post. It cannot be filled up by direct recruitment, or for that matter, by regularization. The petitioner's prayer for regularization as an Office Assistant Grade-I has also been declined, repelling his case of discrimination, vis-a-vis the 40 employees, who had raised an industrial dispute, because their rights were determined in terms of the award and whatever was the fate of challenge to that award by the respondents. The petitioner was not a party to the award passed by the Labour Court. Likewise, the benefit of the judgment and order passed in case of Satya Prakash Srivastava in Writ-A No. 6536 of 1996 was denied to the petitioner because in Srivastava's case, he was granted Grade-I, pursuant to a judicial order, that was enforced through contempt. By the time the impugned order was passed, it was recorded for a fact that the respondents had assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in Satya Prakash Srivastava's case in an appeal before the Division Bench, that was still pending. By the time the impugned order was passed, it was recorded for a fact that the respondents had assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in Satya Prakash Srivastava's case in an appeal before the Division Bench, that was still pending. This appeal, of course, has now come to be dismissed. Still another reason why the petitioner's plea has been declined is the fact that the order dated 27.3.1997, granting regularization to the petitioner, was accepted by him, when he put in his joining report, without reservation. It is on the aforesaid premise, in the main, that the impugned order has been passed rejecting the petitioner's claim. 24. A careful look at the order dated 25.2.1989, by which the cadre structure in the Personnel Section was changed, shows that the former posts of Head Assistant and Senior Office Assistant were re-designated as Office Assistant Grade-I and Office Assistant Grade-II. This decision was taken by the Corporation's Board in a meeting held on 21.1.1899 in deference to a Government Order dated 18.3.1987. Appendix B to the order dated 25.2.1989, which really implements the Corporation Board's resolution and has been passed by the Managing Director, shows in Column 5, the source of recruitment to the post of Office Assistant Grade-I as direct/promotion. The eligibility is shown in Column 7 and the description of the feeding cadre is given in Column 8. The eligibility shown is three years and the description of the feeding cadre is Office Assistant Grade-II. Column 7, which mentions three years, carries a description of particulars in the said column, on head of it, in the following words: ''qualification and experience in the next lower post for eligibility for promotion'. Though a reading of Column 5 might create that doubt, where one would think that the source of recruitment to the post of Office Assistant Grade-I is both, direct and promotion, but that is dispelled upon a conjoint reading of Column 5 with Columns 7 and 8. Since Column 7 speaks exclusively about the number of years of eligibility in the next lower post and Column 8 describes the feeding cadre as Office Assistant Grade-II, there is nothing to indicate that there could be a direct recruitment to the post of an Office Assistant Grade-I. 25. Since Column 7 speaks exclusively about the number of years of eligibility in the next lower post and Column 8 describes the feeding cadre as Office Assistant Grade-II, there is nothing to indicate that there could be a direct recruitment to the post of an Office Assistant Grade-I. 25. It is true that for an ex-cadre, serving on the muster roll, whatever be the length of his engagement, regularization, in the context of a first appointment into the regular cadre, can only be on the entry level post. It is difficult to visualize a first time regularization for a muster roll employee on a promotion post. In fact, the post of Office Assistant Grade-I, being exclusively a promotion post, where the eligibility is three years' service in the feeding cadre of Office Assistant Grade-II, it is almost impossible to regularize an employee from the muster roll on the promotion post. Regularization essentially is a facet of power to appoint and not the power to promote. Bearing that principle in mind as well, the petitioner's contention cannot be accepted. The principle is not to be confounded with those cases, where a person is officiating on a promotion post, while being the member of a post in the feeding cadre and is then made permanent on the promotion post by adopting whatever kind of nomenclature the employer may choose. 26. The next submission urged on behalf of the petitioner is about discrimination practiced by the respondents in regularizing the services of Satya Prakash Srivastava on the post of an Office Assistant Grade-I, while denying that benefit to the petitioner. The services of Satya Prakash Srivastava were regularized in compliance with the judgment and order dated 11.4.2000 passed in Writ-A No. 6536 of 1996. This Court vide judgment and order dated 11.4.2000 modified the order dated 27.3.1997 in case of Satya Prakash Srivastava and ordered him to be placed on the post of an Office Assistant in the pay-scale of Rs. 1350-2200/-, that is an Office Assistant Grade-I, at least from the date of the aforesaid order. For the second petitioner in Satya Prakash Srivastava, a mandamus was differently issued, directing the respondents to consider regularization of his services and in case he was found fit, may be given the pay-scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- from the date of this Court's order passed in Satya Prakash Srivastava. For the second petitioner in Satya Prakash Srivastava, a mandamus was differently issued, directing the respondents to consider regularization of his services and in case he was found fit, may be given the pay-scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- from the date of this Court's order passed in Satya Prakash Srivastava. The judgment in Satya Prakash Srivastava has now been upheld in appeal by the Division Bench as well. For the reasons given in Satya Prakash Srivastava, a mandamus to place him on the post of an Office Assistant in the pay-scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- from the date of the order dated 27.3.1997 was issued, modifying it. It was a mandamus not to consider, but to place or regularize Satya Prakash Srivastava in the higher grade. It is on that account that Satya Prakash Srivastava came to be regularized in the higher grade. It is well-known for a principle that no plea of discrimination can be founded in respect of actions of the State done for an individual in compliance with a judicial command. Therefore, the submission of the petitioner that there is a hostile discrimination practiced in not regularizing the petitioner's services on the post of an Office Assistant Grade-I on one hand and doing so in case of Satya Prakash Srivastava on the other, is clearly untenable. 27. The other case about the 40 muster roll employees, who were regularized pursuant to an award of the Labour Court, if they have, in fact, been placed on the post of Office Assistant Grade-I, would likewise not attract a plea of hostile discrimination, because the petitioner was not a party to the industrial dispute or the Labour Court's award. Whatever is done in terms of the Labour Court's award, is not the respondents' act, but compliance with a judicial verdict, of which the petitioner is not a beneficiary. 28. No other point was pressed. 29. In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed. 30. There shall be no order as to costs.