Bilaspur vs Himachal Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3432 HP

                         1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
           ON THE   17th DAY OF MAY, 2022
                      BEFORE




                                                  .
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN





                         &
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER BUSAN BAROWALIA





       LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 179 OF 2021
 BETWEEN





    NARENDER SHARMA, SON OF SHRI
    DHANI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
    DHIAL POST OFFICE NAMHOL,
    TEHSIL

                SADAR,     DISTRICT

    BILASPUR, H.P. RETIRED LINEMAN
    FROM HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE
    ELECTRICITY ROAD LIMITED
           ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER



 (BY SH. B.N.SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
  AND




         1. HIMACHAL PRADESH





         STATE       ELECTRICITY
         BOARD LIMITED, THROUGH





         ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
         (PERSONNEL)      VIDYUT
         BHAWAN, SHIMLA.
         2.    THE     EXECUTIVE
         DIRECTOR    (PERSONNEL)
         HIMACHAL       PRADESH




                                 ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2022 20:03:52 :::CIS
                                   2


             STATE        ELECTRICITY
             BOARD LIMITED, KUMAR
             HOUSE, SHIMLA­4.
             3. CHIEF ENGINEER (OP
             NORTH)         HIMACHAL




                                                             .
             PRADESH            STATE





             ELECTRICITY        BOARD
             LIMITED, DHARAMSHALA,





             DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
             4. SHRI HOSHIAR SINGH,
             JUNIOR         ENGINEER
             (ELECTRICAL)     SECTION




             BADHAGHAT SUB DIVISION
             No.    2,    GHUMARWIN,
             DISTRICT BILASPUR.
             5. SHRI KHAJANA RAM,

             JUNIOR         ENGINEER

             (ELECTRICAL)     SECTION
             MANALI, SUB DIVISION NO.
             2, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.


             6. SHRI MOOL CHAND,
             JUNIOR         ENGINEER
             (ELECTRICAL)     SECTION




             ANNI, SUB DIVISION ANNI,
             DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.





                        ...RESPONDENTS

          (BY MR. T.S. CHAUHAN,               ADVOCATE,                FOR





          RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 3. )


                This appeal coming on for admission this day,             this

    Court passed the following:




                                            ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2022 20:03:52 :::CIS
                                         3


                 JUDGMENT

The appellant/petitioner approached learned writ Court for

the grant of following reliefs:

.

"I) That the integrated Seniority List of Lineman as it stood on 01.01.2010 contained in Annexure P-2 may kindly be set aside by way of issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari;

ii) That the promotion of the respondents No. 4 to 6 may also kindly be set aside and quashed;

iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to

promote the present petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) from the date from which his juniors have been promoted with all consequential benefits;

r iv)That the respondents may be directed to produce

the entire record pertaining to the present case before this Hon'ble Court for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court;"

2. The petitioner was appointed as T-Mate on regular basis

on 1.8.1977 and later vide order dated 19.10.1989 promoted to the

post of Assistant Lineman. The petitioner improved his qualification

and obtained diploma in ITI Electrical Trade and in May, 2002, he was

promoted on adhoc basis as a Lineman. Later, he was regularized as

such w.e.f. 31.3.2003.The next promotional post from that of Lineman

is either that of the Junior Engineer or a Foreman.

3. In the month of July, 2011, option was sought from the

petitioner as to whether he intended to be promoted against the post of

Junior Engineer or Foreman. He opted for the post of Junior Engineer.

.

Respondent-Board then prepared one integrated seniority list of

Lineman as it stood on 1.1.2006, wherein the name of the petitioner

figured at serial No. 1296.

4. According to the appellant, name of respondent No. 4

did not figure at all in the integrated seniority list, whereas names of

respondents No. 5 and 6 appeared at serial Nos 1428 and 1377,

respectively. The Board thereafter again issued an integrated seniority

list of Lineman, as it stood on 1.1.2020 and the same was circulated

before convening of the Departmental Promotion Committee. In this

list, name of petitioner was reflected at serial No. 755, whereas name

of respondent No. 4 appeared at serial No. 688 and names of

respondents No. 5 and 6 appeared at serial Nos 604 and 628,

respectively. The respondent-Board made promotions to the post of

Junior Engineer by promoting respondents No. 4 to 6 on the basis of

the recommendations of the DPC held on 22.9.2011 and 5.1.2012,

respectively. The petitioner superannuated from the post of Lineman.

Aggrieved by his non-promotion, he filed CWPOA No. 3430 of 2019,

for the reliefs as quoted above.

5. The respondent-Board filed its reply, wherein factual

.

matrix of the case has not been denied. Further it is submitted that

after the petitioner acquired qualification of ITI in the trade of

Electrician in the year 1999, was promoted to the post of Lineman on

adhoc basis on 15.5.2002, subject to the condition that his

regularization in the grade of Lineman would be considered on his

turn for promotion in the normal course against the quota prescribed

from promotion in the R&P Regulations and his Seniority was to be

continued in the grade of Lineman. The petitioner accepted the said

condition and joined as Lineman on adhoc basis on 20.5.2002 and was

later promoted on regular basis on 29.1.2005. Thus, he was entitled to

the benefit of seniority in the grade of Lineman only w.e.f. 29.1.2005.

6. Further, the seniority of Linemen is integrated at state

level for the purpose of their further promotion to the post of Foreman

Electrical/ Junior Engineer Electrical. The petitioner being junior in

the list could not be promoted.

7. As stated above, the promotion of the petitioner vide

office order 13.5.2002 as Lineman was purely on adhoc basis and it is

clearly mentioned in the office order that the regularization of the

.

petitioner in higher grade will be considered on its turn for promotion

in normal course against the quota prescribed for promotion in R&P

Regulations. This condition was accepted by the petitioner without

any demur or objection.

8. Once that be so, obviously his position, as reflected in

the seniority list, was unassailable at least at his instance. Not only

this, respondents have prepared integrated seniority list, as it stood on

1.1.2010 vide notification dated 24.12.2011, but the petitioner did not

even choose to assail the seniority list and having acquiescence to the

same, cannot now turn around and question the action of respondents,

more particularly, when he already stood superannuated at the time of

filing of writ petition.

9. As rightly observed by learned Writ Court, the private

respondents were senior to the petitioner and therefore, rightly

considered for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer prior to the

petitioner. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the

orders passed by learned Writ court, when it held the filing of the writ

petition to be an afterthought.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find no merit in

.

this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties

to bear their own cost.

                                               (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
                                                       Judge




                        r             to  (Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
                                                      Judge

    17th May, 2022
    Kalpana