Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Shivam Agarwal, Advocate holding brief of Sri R.B. Singhal, learned Senior Advocate for petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) Petitioner was an employee of Auto Tractors Limited and having been retrenched due to closure of said Unit which was Government Company of State of U.P. is claiming absorption on a corresponding post in State Government in view of U.P. Absorption of Retrenched Employees of the State Government or Public Corporation in Government Service Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 1991").
(3.) M/S Auto Tractors Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "ATL") was a Company of State Government registered under Companies Act, 1956 and shares were owned by State of U.P. Petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in ATL on 22.04.1980 and thereafter promoted as Senior Stenographer (English). ATL though a Company owned by State Government but itself was not a department of Government and, therefore, petitioner did not hold any civil post. He was retrenched from the post of Senior Stenographer (English) from ATL w.e.f. 21.11.1990 pursuant to the decision of Government of same date and a retrenchment certificate was issued by General Manager (Administration) ATL to this effect on 15.12.1993. Claiming absorption under the provisions of Rules, 1991 petitioner claimed to have made a representation for absorption on the post of Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools vide application dated 17.08.1998. Director (Basic) U.P. sent a letter dated 10.08.1999 informing petitioner that he should make application for absorption on an equivalent post to the post wherever he was retrenched. Petitioner again made representation dated 03.11.1999 insisting upon his request for absorption as Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools and having failed to receive any response filed this writ petition seeking mandamus commanding respondents to absorb petitioner on the post of Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools under Director of Education (Basic) or on any equivalent post in the pay scale in which petitioner was working at the time of his retrenchment.;