Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1791 (HP)

Chand Ram v. H. P. State Electricity Board

2011-03-30

V.K.SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT : V.K. Sharma, J. The petition has been filed on the following prayers: “1. That the D.P.C. held by the respondents for the promotion to the post of electrician with respect to respondent No. 5 to 9 be quashed and set aside. 2. That D.P.C. be held a fresh by considering the applicant for the promotion to the post of electrician.” 2. In reply, respondents No. 1 to 4 have taken the following stand vide the relevant portion of para 1 of the preliminary submissions: “In context, the replying respondents submit with utmost respect that the name of applicant, Shri Chand Ram is appearing at Sr. No. 26 of the revised final seniority list of Helper (P/H) (E) as it stood on 31.1.2000 issued by the Deputy Chief Engineer, Generation Circle, Palampur vide letter No. GCP/ET-8/2001-1049-53 dated 19.5.2001 (copy attached as Annexure-RA-I) whereas the name of respondent Nos. 5 to 9 are appearing at Sr. No. 35, 37, 45, 47 and 48. The applicant joined the department on 20.2.87 as Beldar (W/C) and regularised as such on 30.7.88. The applicant was re-designated as Helper w.e.f. 17.12.99 from Baldar vide HPSEB office order No. HPSEB (SECTT)/321-20/99-8753-600 dated 17.12.99 read with No. 95024-94 dated 6.1.2000 (placed below as Annexure-RA-II & RA-III respectively). In view of this decision they have been allowed notional seniority over those daily waged who are/were appointed/brought on regular cadre as Helper prior to his re-designation. As per the R&P Regulations, his eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Electrician (P/H)(E) is required to be considered from the date of his re-designation as Helper i.e. 17.12.99 and as such he is not fulfilling the eligibility criteria presently. However, no such promotion orders of this category have been issued as yet. Therefore, the OA is not maintainable and deserves only dismissal being premature.” 3. Rejoinder, refuting the above stand on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 and reiterating the averments set up in the petition, has been filed. 4. It is manifest from the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 that in the revised final seniority list of Helpers (P/H) Elect., as it stood on 31.01.2000 whereas the petitioner was figuring at serial No. 26, respondents No. 5 to 9 were at serial Nos. 35, 37, 45, 47 and 48, respectively. 4. It is manifest from the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 that in the revised final seniority list of Helpers (P/H) Elect., as it stood on 31.01.2000 whereas the petitioner was figuring at serial No. 26, respondents No. 5 to 9 were at serial Nos. 35, 37, 45, 47 and 48, respectively. Thus, in the cadre of Helpers (P/H) Elect., the petitioner was senior to respondents No. 5 to 9. It is admitted case of respondents No. 1 to 4 that the petitioner had joined the respondent-Board as Beldar (W/C) on 20.2.1987 and was regularized as such on 30.07.1988. Later on, the post of Beldar was re-designated as Helpers (P/H) w.e.f. 17.12.1999. However, further case of respondents No. 1 to 4 is that whereas respondents No. 5 to 9 were working Helpers (P/H) on regular basis w.e.f. 03.02.1997, the petitioner was re-designated as Helpers w.e.f. 17.12.1999, meaning thereby that whereas respondents No. 5 to 9 came to be re-designated as Helper earlier to the petitioner, though in the cadre of Helper (P/H) Elect., he was admittedly senior to respondents No. 5 to 9. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No. 1 to 4/competent authority that subject to the petitioner making a representation supported by documents alongwith copy of this judgment within one month from today, the same shall be considered and a final decision taken in the matter by the said respondents/competent authority within next three months in accordance with law and the observations made hereinabove, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and respondents No. 5 to 9, if so advised. 6. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any.