Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 351 (HP)

HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. OM PARKASH

2010-02-26

KULDIP SINGH, R.B.MISRA

body2010
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.-The Himachal Road Transport Corporation (for short Corporation) has come in appeal against the judgment dated 29.4.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP (T) No. 2698 of 2008, directing the Corporation to frame a scheme for providing two to three promotional avenues to the petitioners and similarly situate persons who were stagnating for more than 30 years on the same post. The modalities shall be worked out by the employer after taking into consideration all the factors, parameters as per settled principles of law. 2. The facts in brief are that respondent was appointed as Electrician on 19.11.1965. The respondent had been working on the same post of electrician for the last about 30 years due to defective rules. The conditions of service of Electrician and other staff are regulated by the Corporation (Class-I,II,III and IV) Services Recruitments, Promotion and Certain Conditions of Services) Regulation, 1983 which came into force in the year 1983. These rules were amended on 21.11.1984. The grievance of the respondent is that as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules, only those Electricians are eligible to be promoted as Licenced Electrician (Technical Grade-II) who possesses a valid certificate of competency issued by the competent authority under Indian Electricity Act and rules made thereunder. There is no provision for promotion to those Electricians who do not possess valid certificates of competency as aforesaid. It is also the case of respondent that it is necessary for the employer to provide at least two to three promotional avenues to remove the stagnation and to improve the efficiency in public service. The case of respondent is to strike down insertion of qualification of possessing valid certificate of competency introduced in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules vide amendment dated 21.11.1984 as the same is arbitrary and against the law laid down by the Supreme court. 3. The Corporation has contested the petition and has submitted that licenced Electrician/Electrical Mechanic in the Corporation requires skill and knowledge of repair and to maintain electrical wiring as well as handling of electrical equipments like electrical motors, welding sets etc. Therefore, a person must possess a certificate /licence of competency issued by the competent authority under the law to handle and repair such equipments. There is no flaw in the recruitment and promotion rule. This condition has been introduced in order to improve the skill of the employees. Therefore, a person must possess a certificate /licence of competency issued by the competent authority under the law to handle and repair such equipments. There is no flaw in the recruitment and promotion rule. This condition has been introduced in order to improve the skill of the employees. As per the existing recruitment and promotion rules, an Electrician can be promoted to the post of licenced electrician/electrical mechanic if he possesses a valid certificate of competency as provided in Recruitment and Promotion Rules of Corporation. Another CWP(T) No.2697/2008 was also filed by one Dhani Ram which was also decided alongwith CWP(T) No.2698/2008 by common judgment dated 24.4.2009. 4. The learned Single Judge without declaring the Regulations ultra-vires wherein the additional qualification of competency certificate has been prescribed directed the Corporation to frame a scheme as noticed above. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. On behalf of the appellant, it has been submittedthat the learned Single Judge has not declared the Recruitment and Promotion Rules ultra vires wherein the additional qualification has been prescribed but simultaneously directed the Corporation to frame a scheme for providing promotional avenues to the petitioners and similarly situate persons. It has been submitted that directions of the learned Single Judge to frame a scheme for providing two to three promotional avenues to the petitioners and similarly situate persons is wrong. The Corporation has not debarred any employee for promotion. The employees of the Corporation who fulfill the qualifications as per recruitment and promotion rules have a right of consideration for promotion. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that no fault can be found with the impugned judgment in view of Food Corporation of India and others versus Parashotam Dass Bansal and others (2005) 5 SCC 100 noticed by learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. 6. It has not been denied on behalf of the appellant that respondent remained on the same post right from the very beginning and was not promoted. The learned Single Judge has upheld the validity of the rules. The appellant by carrying out amendment in the recruitment and promotion rules in the year 1984 closed the chances of promotion of respondent and similarly situate persons for all times to come. The learned Single Judge has upheld the validity of the rules. The appellant by carrying out amendment in the recruitment and promotion rules in the year 1984 closed the chances of promotion of respondent and similarly situate persons for all times to come. In other words the respondent and other similarly situate persons who were appointed as Electrician and not possessing valid competency certificate as per recruitment and promotion rules are not entitled to any further promotion in the Corporation, such employees of the Corporation are bound to retire on the same post on which they were appointed. The appellant is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The appellant is expected to evolve some scheme for respondent and similarly situate persons so as to give them some chances of promotion. The Corporation should not ignore the fact that working conditions of the employees should be made humane and the service conditions should not be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India supra has held that if there is no channel of promotion in respect of a particular group of officers resulting in stagnation over the years, the Court although may not issue any direction as to in which manner a scheme should be formulated or by reason thereof interfere with the operation of existing channel of promotion to the officers working in different departments and officers of the Government but the jurisdiction to issue direction to make a scheme cannot be denied to a Superior Court of the country. In that case the employees were denied an opportunity of promotion for 30 years. In the present case also the respondent had rendered more than 30 years of service. In these circumstances and in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in aforesaid Food Corporation of India case, it cannot be said that the directions given by learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment in any way are wrong and illegal. The appellant is to evolve a scheme providing some promotional avenues to the respondent and similarly situate persons who are stagnating for more than 30 years on the same post. 7. No other point was urged. 8. The result of above discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.