JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. 1. Petitioner-Himachal Road Transport Corporation has come up before this Court, assailing the order dated 13.06.2019 [hereinafter referred to as Impugned Order] passed by the State Administrative Tribunal [now abolished] in OA (M) No. 312 of 2017, In Re: Yadvinder Kumar vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another whereby, the original application filed by Respondent-Original Applicant was allowed; the rejection order dated 30.06.2017, Annexure A-2, was quashed; and Writ Petitioner-Corporation was directed to consider the case of Respondent-Original Applicant-Employee herein for change of designation from Conductor to that of Clerk with all consequential benefits within two months. FACTUAL MATRIX BEFORE THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN OA (M) NO.312 OF2017: 2. Case of the Respondent-Original Applicant, in nutshell as presented before the State Administrative Tribunal [now abolished] was that the Respondent-Original Applicant-Yadvinder Kumar, was appointed as a Conductor in the Petitioner-Corporation, on compassionate grounds and was posted in Hamirpur Unit of the Corporation on 27.04.1995. It is the case of the Respondent-Original Applicant that since his joining as a Conductor in the Corporation on 27.04.1995, the Corporation had made the Respondent-Original Applicant to perform the work of a Clerk, by posting him in Computer Section, upto August, 1999. Thereafter he had been sent to the Office of Regional Manager of the Corporation at Kullu from August, 1999 till March, 2004 by assigning him the work and duties which were performable by a Clerk in the normal course. It is averred that from March/April, 2004, Annexure A-3 & Annexure A-4, the Respondent-Original Applicant, was sent on secondment [akin to deputation] with the Regional Transport Officer, Kullu [under the State Government] and he performed the duties of a Clerk from March/April, 2004 till February, 2013, vide Annexure A-4 and Annexure A-5 till his repatriation back to the Petitioner-Corporation at Kullu. Upon repatriation in February, 2013, the Respondent herein, continued to perform the work of Dealing Assistant [Stat & Stationery] and also performed the work of passing of vehicles under Authorised Testing Station HRTC, Kullu and dealt with all correspondence and driving training school etc. in the Office of the Corporation, till March, 2017, Annexure A-10, when, the Respondent-Original Applicant was ordered to be deployed as Adda Incharge by the Corporation. 3. in the Office of the Corporation, till March, 2017, Annexure A-10, when, the Respondent-Original Applicant was ordered to be deployed as Adda Incharge by the Corporation. 3. Feeling Aggrieved, the Respondent-Original Applicant filed an Original Application (M) No.86 of 2017, claiming that though he had been appointed as Conductor but had performed the work of a Clerk from April, 1995 till March, 2017, therefore, his designation/nomenclature may be changed from Conductor to Clerk, on analogy of which similar benefit of change in designation has been allowed to 435 others and Vijay Kumar and Satya Devi but, his claim was rejected on 30.06.2017 Annexure P-2. STAND OF CORPORATION BEFORE THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL: 4. The rejection order dated 30.06.2017 [Annexure A-3] became the subject of challenge in Original Application (M) No.312 of 2017, which led to passing of the Impugned Order dated 13.06.2019 [Annexure A-1]. The Corporation has supported the rejection orders on various grounds. 5. Heard, Mr. Vikas Rajput, Learned Counsel, for the Petitioners-Corporation and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Motta, Learned Counsel, for the Respondent- Original Applicant. IMPUGNED ORDER: 6. After noticing the claim of the Respondent- Original Applicant before the State Administrative Tribunal and the stand of the Corporation and analysis thereof, the State Administrative Tribunal passed the order dated 13.06.2019 [Annexure P-1, the Impugned Order herein] whereby, the Original Application filed by the Respondent-Original Applicant, Yadvinder Kumar, was allowed on 13.06.2019, by quashing the rejection order dated 30.06.2017, Annexure A-2, and by directing the Corporation to consider the case for change of designation from Conductor to that of Clerk with all consequential benefits. The State Administrate Tribunal also noticed that judgment in the case of Jai Singh [CWP No.3093 of 2009] was decided and was implemented by the Corporation, on the analogy of which 435 other employees, including Vijay Kumar, Satya Devi and Jai Singh [total 438 incumbents] were allowed to change their designation from Conductor to Clerk by Corporation after due approval of the Board of Directors. The operative part of order dated13.06.2019 reads as under:- “7. It is noticed that the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the judgment cited supra had observed that one Sh. Vijay Kumar and Smt. Satya Devi who had been performing the duties of clerk, the respondent- Corporation had changed their designation along with 435 other officials the change of designation had been approved by the Board of Directors. It is noticed that the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the judgment cited supra had observed that one Sh. Vijay Kumar and Smt. Satya Devi who had been performing the duties of clerk, the respondent- Corporation had changed their designation along with 435 other officials the change of designation had been approved by the Board of Directors. The applicant had not been dealt with in a just and fair manner by the respondents by treating him at par with Vijay Kumar and Satya Devi and 435 other employees, in whose cases, the designations have been allowed to be changed. The action of the respondents of not allowing the change of designation of the applicant from Conductor to clerk is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable and, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Grave injustice has been made to the applicant by extracting work of Clerk with effect from the initial date of his appointment as Clerk but by not changing his designation. 8. In view of the above, the original application is allowed, office order dated 30.06.2017, Annexure A-2, is quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for change of designation from conductor to clerk with all consequential benefits within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the applicant. CHALLENGE TO IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.06.2019 BY STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL: 7. First contention of Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners-Corporation is that change in designation from Conductor to Clerk cannot be allowed in the absence of any provision in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules.The above contention of the Writ Petitioners-Corporation is misconceived, for the reason, that even if, there was no provision in the existing Rules for allowing change in designation from Conductor to Clerk then, in absence of any provision in the Rules, the Board of Directors, being the highest decision making authority was empowered to approve change in designation which was allowed to total 438 other officials [i.e. 435 others and three more i.e. Vijay Kumar, Satya Devi and Jai Singh]. The Board of Directors of the Corporation has every right to create cadre(s) or abolish cadre, merge cadre or to regulate the conditions of service of its employees, by allowing change of designation or other matters, which were not covered by the Rules/Regulations as in this case. The Board of Directors of the Corporation has every right to create cadre(s) or abolish cadre, merge cadre or to regulate the conditions of service of its employees, by allowing change of designation or other matters, which were not covered by the Rules/Regulations as in this case. Thus, the decision taken by Board of Directors in instant case, by allowing change in designation/nomenclature of incumbents from Conductors to Clerks, in absence of any provision in Recruitment and Promotion Rules does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity: (i) Second contention of the Writ Petitioner-Corporation is that the judgment in the case of Jai Singh [CWP No. 3093 of 2009, dated 02.01.2012] is distinguishable on facts. The above contention of the Writ Petitioner-Corporation is also misconceived, for the reason, that a perusal of orders dated 02.08.2012, Annexure A-8, in the Original Application reveals that change in designation has been granted in case of Jai Singh, who was appointed as a Conductor on 15.11.1991 but had performed the work of Clerk in the Corporation. The aforesaid Jai Singh was treated as Clerk from 15.11.1991 and was given placement as Junior Assistant in higher pay scale of Rs.4400-7000 w.e.f. 01.01.2005. So far as Respondent-Original Applicant is concerned, he was appointed as a Conductor on compassionate grounds on regular basis on 27.04.1995. The State Administrative Tribunal had allowed the Original Application after noticing the material available i.e. Annexures A-3 to A-10, which undoubtedly, go on to establish that the Respondent- Original Applicant, Yadvinder Kumar, had also been made to work as a Clerk by the Corporation and also during the period of secondment with Regional Transport Officer, Kullu and then upon repatriation by the Corporation-Authorities from April, 1995 till 15.03.2017, Annexure A-10, and was granted interim protection by State Administrative Tribunal on 10.08.2017 which was made absolute on 12.06.2018. Thus, even on facts, the findings recorded by the State Administrative Tribunal in the Impugned Order dated 13.06.2019, are supported by material on record and do not call for any interference. (ii) Third contention of the Writ Petitioner-Corporation is that the aforesaid Jai Singh has not availed the benefit of promotion, seniority and pay fixation as Clerk but has availed the benefits as a Conductor. The above contention now being raised in the Writ Petition is contrary to the material on record. (ii) Third contention of the Writ Petitioner-Corporation is that the aforesaid Jai Singh has not availed the benefit of promotion, seniority and pay fixation as Clerk but has availed the benefits as a Conductor. The above contention now being raised in the Writ Petition is contrary to the material on record. A perusal of order dated 02.08.2012, Annexure A-8, before the State Administrative Tribunal, reveals that after passing of the judgment dated 02.01.2012 in CWP No.3093 2009 and dismissal of LPA No.134 of 2012 on 03.05.2012 and implementation orders dated 19.06.2012, the aforesaid Jai Singh was extended the benefit by changing his cadre/ nomenclature/post from Conductor to Clerk from the date of initiation appointment on 15.11.1991. He was further assigned seniority in the changed cadre of Clerk from the date of initial appointment. Moreover, the aforesaid Jai Singh was given placement as Junior Assistant w.e.f. 01.01.2005 in higher pay scale. In this background, the contention of the Writ Petitioner-Corporation is contrary to the material on record and does not pass the test of judicial scrutiny and is thus turned down. (iii) Fourth contention of the Writ Petitioner-Corporation is that benefit as given to Jai Singh cannot be extended to the Respondent-Original Applicant, Yadvinder Kumar. The above contention has been raised which obviously does not hold any ground, for the reason, that judgment dated 03.05.2012, passed in CWP No. 3093 of 2009, titled as Jai Singh vs. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation was assailed in LPA No. 134 of 2012, titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation vs. Jai Singh, which met the fate of dismissal, on 03.05.2012 in the following terms:- “5. The legality and validity of the impugned judgment has been assailed on the grounds inter alia that there is no provision which provide for change of designation and that the precedents of Shri Vijay Kumar and Smt. Satya Devi and other 435 employees, relied upon while accepting the writ petition were of no help in the present case, as in those cases, the designation of the incumbents were changed with the prior approval of the Board of Directors, whereas no such approval was accorded in the case of the petitioner. Also, that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the facts such as the writ petitioner was initially appointed as conductor, and that he could not have been designated as clerk, in its right perspective. 6. Also, that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the facts such as the writ petitioner was initially appointed as conductor, and that he could not have been designated as clerk, in its right perspective. 6. Record of the writ petition has been tagged with this appeal. We find from the record that the writ petitioner, no doubt, initially was appointed as conductor, however, immediately after completion of his training and joining duties in the head office of the respondent Corporation at Shimla, was deployed to handle the cases pertaining to respondent corporation, pending disposal in the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, Shimla on and w.e.f. 23.11.1991. On the abolition of the Tribunal, he has been attached with the Senior Legal Advisor-cum-Standing Counsel to the respondent Corporation in the High Court of H.P. Thus, undisputedly, the writ petitioner, right from his initial appointment is performing the duties of a clerk. The stand taken by the respondent Corporation that his designation cannot be changed into that of a clerk, is neither plausible nor substantiated from the record, and rather runs contrary to its own stand that since the year 1974 onwards Sh. Vijay Kumar, Smt. Satya Devi and 435 other employees were allowed to change their designations with the approval of the Board of Directors. Surprisingly enough, in the case of the writ petitioner, such approval has not been accorded by the Board of Directors, to the reasons best known it because writ-petitioner is working as Clerk right from the very beginning. He never remained deployed as conductor. There are no promotional avenues available to the petitioner in the channel of conductor, for the reason that he never performed the duties of a conductor during his whole service career hence not acquired any experience in this field. He cannot be thus promoted to the next higher post i.e. inspector for which five years’ experience as conductor is the essential requirement. 7. In view of the above factual matrix, the only inescapable conclusion would be the one, which the learned Single Judge has already drawn, after appreciating the given facts and circumstances of this case in its right perspective. Thus, the present is not a fit case where any interference with the judgment assailed in the appeal, is warranted. 8. 7. In view of the above factual matrix, the only inescapable conclusion would be the one, which the learned Single Judge has already drawn, after appreciating the given facts and circumstances of this case in its right perspective. Thus, the present is not a fit case where any interference with the judgment assailed in the appeal, is warranted. 8. In view of the above discussion, since on merits also no case is found to be made out, therefore, the present application and also the main appeal being without any merits, deserves dismissal.” In the teeth of the judgment passed on 03.05.2012 [in CWP No.3093 of 2009] and the judgment dated 03.05.2012 [passed in LPA No.134 of 2012] in case of Jai Singh [supra], once the aforesaid findings have attained finality and the case of Respondent-Original Applicant, is akin to that of Jai Singh, which stood implemented on 02.08.2012, Annexure A-8, therefore, this Court sees no reason, as to why similar benefit be not extended to the Respondent-Original Applicant, Yadvinder Kumar, which has rightly been extended to him by the State Administrative Tribunal in terms of the Impugned Order dated 13.06.2019. Moreover, once the benefit of change in designation after due approval of the Board of Directors has been extended in case of total 438 other similar incumbents [i.e. 435 others and Vijay Kumar, Satya Devi and Jai Singh], by granting/allowing change in designation from Conductor to Clerk then, the Respondent-Original Applicant, Yadvinder Kumar, being similarly placed, deserves similar treatment. Nothing has been placed on record that as to how and in what manner the case of Respondent-Original Applicant [Yadvinder Kumar] is dissimilar to that of 438 other Conductors, who have been granted/allowed change in designation as Clerk, after due approval of Board of Directors. Respondent-Original Applicant has never worked as Conductor since his actual appointment w.e.f. 1995 till 2017 and thereafter, which is borne out from the documentary evidence [i.e. Annexure A-3 to Annexure A-13 in OA record and A-2 to A-13, which is the part of records of OA]. Respondent-Original Applicant has never worked as Conductor since his actual appointment w.e.f. 1995 till 2017 and thereafter, which is borne out from the documentary evidence [i.e. Annexure A-3 to Annexure A-13 in OA record and A-2 to A-13, which is the part of records of OA]. Once the State Administrative Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact and nothing has been placed on record by the Petitioners-Corporation before the State Administrative Tribunal and even in this Court in writ proceedings, to show that these documents/certificates were not valid or were obtained by fraud etc., therefore, the findings recorded by Learned Tribunal, needs no interference in these proceedings. Once the benefit of change in designation stands accorded to others, therefore, denial of similar benefit to the Respondent- Original Applicant, amounts to treating “equals as unequal”, resulting in hostile discrimination. Denial will further aggravate illegality, committed by the Writ Petitioner-Corporation. Once the benefit of change in designation/post from Conductor to Clerk has been extended to one Shri Jai Singh on the basis judgment dated 02.01.2012, passed in CWP No. 3093 of 2009, titled as Jai Singh vs. HRTC and judgment dated 03.05.2012, passed in LPA No. 134 of 2012, HRTC Versus Jai Singh which stands dismissed and even the order(s)/judgment stands implemented by Corporation on 02.08.2012, Annexure A-8, then, the Respondent-Original Applicant being similarly placed, cannot be singled out and discriminated. In addition, the contention of the Respondent-Original Applicant that once Petitioner- Corporation had extended the benefit of change of designation/cadre from Conductor to that of Clerk, in case of 438 other employees, upon due approval by the Board of Directors, then the Respondent-Original Applicant being similarly placed, deserves similar treatment, so as to ensure parity and to avoid charge of discrimination. In these circumstances, the contention raised, is without any substance. 8. No other point has been argued/pressed. 9. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the Impugned Order dated 13.06.2019 passed by Learned State Administrative Tribunal in OA (M) No.312 of 2017, does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity and the same is upheld. DIRECTIONS: 10. 8. No other point has been argued/pressed. 9. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the Impugned Order dated 13.06.2019 passed by Learned State Administrative Tribunal in OA (M) No.312 of 2017, does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity and the same is upheld. DIRECTIONS: 10. The instant writ petition shall dispose of in following terms:- (i) Instant Petition i.e. CWP No.1088 of 2020 is dismissed; (ii) Impugned Order dated 13.06.2019 passed by State Administrative Tribunal in OA (M) No. 312 of 2017 In Re: Yadvinder Kumar Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another, is upheld; (iii) Costs made easy for respective parties. 11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.