Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 29.7.2002 (Annexure P13) vide which his claim for promotion to the post of Superintendent w.e.f. 6.7.2000 has been rejected by respondent No. 1. 2. It has been contended that the petitioner was an employee of the Punjab State Electricity Board, as he was appointed on the post of LDC on 12.4.1966, After bifurcation of the State of Punjab, he was allocated to the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board on 2.5.1967. As per office order No. 18 dated 10.5.1967 (Annexure P1), the service conditions of the petitioner in the Punjab State Electricity Board were protected as the said office order provides that the Officers/staff of the composite Punjab State Electricity Board who have been allocated to the Haryana State Electricity Board shall continue to be governed by the same terms and conditions as were applicable to them in the defunct Punjab State Electricity Board. After his allocation to the Haryana State Electricity Board , the petitioner was promoted to the post of UDC on 24.2.1972. Thereafter, he was further promoted as Assistant on 30.6.1975. Further, he was given current duty charge of Deputy Superintendent. On that post, he was made regular on 16.3.2001. Prior to that the petitioner was further given the current duty charge against the vacant post of superintendent w.e.f. 6.7.2000. 3. The claim of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that he is entitled for promotion to the post of Superintendent w.e.f. 6.7.2000 as on that date a vacant post of Superintendent was available and he was fully eligible and qualified to be promoted on the said post. This claim of the petitioner has been rejected by respondent No. 1 on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent as he did not fulfil the condition of three years service as Deputy Superintendent as laid down in the Recruitment and Promotion Policy notified on 6.3.1991. The contention of the petitioner is that he was in service with the Punjab State Electricity Board prior to his allocation to the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board, therefore, his service conditions are governed by those rules which were applicable at that time. The contention of the petitioner is that he was in service with the Punjab State Electricity Board prior to his allocation to the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board, therefore, his service conditions are governed by those rules which were applicable at that time. According to the petitioner, at that time, there was no requirement of three years service on the post of Deputy Superintendent for promotion to the post of Superintendent. He submitted that the Recruitment and Promotion Policy dated 6.3.1991 is not applicable in his case as issuance of this Policy will tantamount to change in his service conditions which is not permissible except with the prior approval of the Central Government under subsection (6) of Section 82 of the Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and the written statement filed by the respondents, we are of the opinion that there is no force in the contentions raised by the petitioner and his writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. After formation of Haryana State Electricity Board, an office order No. 19 dated 10.5.1967 was issued by the Haryana State Electricity Board, which is reproduced as under :- "The Haryana State Electricity Board has decided that Rules/Regulations/Orders of the Punjab State Electricity Board as obtaining on May 1, 1967 be adopted by the Haryana State Electricity Board for facility of working of his offices subject to such amendments as might be made from time to time." 6. From the bare perusal of the aforesaid office order, it is clear that the Haryana State Electricity Board was fully competent/empowered to frame its own Rules and Regulations and Formulate its policy, Haryana State Electricity Board vide its office order No. 891 dated 7.10.1978 revised the Recruitment and Promotion Policy in respect of promotions of the Cadres of Superintendents and Deputy Superintendents. Further, in exercise of power conferred under Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the Board vide its notification dated 6.3.1991 had revised Recruitment and Promotion Policy in respect Of ministerial services (Head Office). According to this policy, the post of Superintendent is to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Deputy Superintendents on seniority-cum-merit basis having passed the departmental examination for ministerial establishment and having completed three years service as Deputy Superintendent. According to this policy, the post of Superintendent is to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Deputy Superintendents on seniority-cum-merit basis having passed the departmental examination for ministerial establishment and having completed three years service as Deputy Superintendent. In view of the aforesaid policy, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he was not qualified and eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent. We find no force in the contention of the petitioner that being the employee of the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board, the petitioner is not bound by the subsequent amendment made in the Rules and Regulations and the Policy framed for appointment to the post of Superintendent. When the petitioner was allocated to the Haryana State Electricity Board, he was working on the post of LDC. We are of the opinion that Sub-section (6) of Section 82 of the Act is not applicable in the instant case as there was no change in the condition of service of the petitioner. Only the Rules and Regulations of the Board have been altered from time to time and while altering the Rules, the promotional policy has been made for promotion to the post of Superintendent vide notification dated 6.3.191. We have also considered the submissions of the petitioner vide which he wants to take the benefit of the Instructions dated 7.12.2001 which have been adopted by the respondent-Nigam vide order dated 20.5.2002. These instructions are applicable only on pensioners and not on working employees. 7. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.