Punjab-Haryana High Court
H.S.E.B vs Sat Narain on 31 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014444
RSA-2488-2000 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-2488-2000 (O&M)
Reserved on: 29.01.2025
Date of Decision: 31.01.2025
THE HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. .....Appellants
Vs.
SAT NARAIN AND OTHERS .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present: Mr. N.S. Swaitch, Advocate
for the appellants.
Respondents No.1 to 3 already ex parte.
None for respondent No.4.
******
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Suit for declara"on with consequen"al relief of permanent
injunc"on filed by plain"ff-Sat Narain and others (respondents herein) for
themselves and others in representa"ve capacity was decreed by the trial
Court on 29.05.1998. The appeal filed by the defendants (appellants herein)
was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 08.10.1999. Against these
concurrent findings of the Courts below, the defendants of the case have
filed the present Regular Second Appeal.
2. Perusal of the paperbook reveals plain"ff Sat Narain and three
others filed the suit for declara"on with consequen"al relief of permanent
injunc"on against the Haryana State Electricity Board (for short H.S.E.B.) in
their personal capacity as well as in representa"ve capacity on behalf of
other employees, pleading that they were employees of defendant H.S.E.Β.
and were working as Jr. Engineers, posted either at Faridabad or at Panipat
Thermal Power Sta"on. As per them, on 1.4.1979, all the plain"ffs were
working in different Trades/Branches in the Thermal Power House of
defendants and they cons"tuted one cadre and their pay scale was 700-30-
850/900-40-1100-50-1250. Their designa"on was fixed as Thermal
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014444
Supervisors/Thermal Operators, with total sanc"oned post of the Cadre at
Faridabad as well as Panipat to be 430. On 9.2.1981 by the order of the
defendants, the plain"ffs were re-designated as Jr. Engineers in their
respec"ve fields of specializa"on. Their scales were also revised vide le?er
dated 22.4.1982 with retrospec"ve effect i.e. with effect from 1.4.1979.
Vide le?er No.291/Finance dated 5.2.1982 issued by defendant No.1, it was
decided as a ma?er of policy that defendants would release Selec"on
Grades to 20% of the sanc"oned posts of Thermal Supervisors and Thermal
Operators. All the Supervisors and Thermal Operators had been re-
designated as Jr. Engineers, therefore, that policy was applicable to 430
sanc"oned posts of which the plain"ffs formed part of the Cadre. 20% of
the posts were to be treated as posts carrying Selec"on Grade in the pay
scale of 300-30-850/900-40-1100-50-1250. The pay in the Selec"on Grade
was further revised on 22.4.82 and was re-fixed as 750-30-900-40-1200-50-
1450 effec"ve from 1.4.79.
3. Further case of the plain"ffs is that for the first "me vide le?er
dated 6.12.1984, the defendant No.1 released Selec"on Grade only to 18 Jr.
Engineers who were earlier working as Thermal Supervisors/Thermal and
Operators/Operators were re-designated as Jr. Engineer(s) as per the policy
decision of the department. Those persons were released from the
Selec"on Grade as per revised pay scales. The plain"ffs represented to the
department that against the sanc"oned 430 posts of Jr. Engineers in the
year 1979-80 onwards, 86 employees became eligible to the grant of
Selec"on Grade in the revised pay scale and were liable to be placed in
Selec"on Grade with effect from 1.4.1979. Out of I8 employees to whom
Selec"on Grade was granted, four employees have been promoted to the
next higher rank and thus two employees had resigned and only 12 persons
remained in the list who have been granted Selec"on Grade. Despite
repeated representa"ons, the defendants did not heed to their request and
thus, they approached the Civil Court for a decree of declara"on that all the
plain"ffs/ employees named in Annexure A were en"tled to the grant of
Selec"on Grade in the pay scale of `750-30-900-40-1200/50-1450 as Jr.
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014444
Engineers with effect from 1.4.1979 or on such revised pay scale as might
be fixed by the defendants from "me to "me. They further sought direc"on
to the defendants to release the arrears of salary of the plain"ffs
respec"vely on the basis of Selec"on Grade with effect from 1.4.1979
together with interest 18% per annum on the arrears of salary to them by
way of Mandatory Injunc"on. The plain"ffs sought direc"ons to the
defendants to release the Selec"on Grade immediately.
4. Defendants opposed the suit raising preliminary objec"on that
grant of Selec"on Grade to junior engineers/thermal Supervisors Grade-I of
20 % of the total strength of 264 cadre posts on the basis of seniority was
linked with final absorp"on of cadre employees of the Board for which the
Civil Writ Pe""on No.4194 of 1986 was pending before the High Court and
so, the Civil Court was barred from entertaining suit. It was pleaded further
that the scales of Jr. Engineers, Thermal/Thermal Supervisors Grade-I is
allowed by the Board was 700/1250 and according to staffing pa?ern, all
the plain"ffs had been re-designated as Jr. Engineer Thermal in terms of
memo dated 7.8.1985 and cadre dated 30.9.1985. They pleaded that the
latest sanc"oned strength of the above cadre posts was 264 and not 430 as
alleged by the plain"ffs. They denied the factum of Thermal Operators
having been designated as Jr. Engineer Thermal. They pleaded that in fact
according to the latest recruitment and promo"on policy for Thermal
Projects adopted by the Board vide office order dated 27.5.1985 read with
office order dated 7.8.1985, operators have been placed in the scale of
600/1100 and thus, have been redesignated as Thermal Supervisor Grade-II
and not as Jr. Engineer, Thermal Engineer/Thermal. The defendants
admi?ed that the Selec"on Grade to employees of the total cadre post was
not disputed but the strength of the cadre post of the plain"ffs was 264 and
not 430 as alleged, and Selec"on Grade was payable on the basis of
seniority subject to the condi"ons that no charge-sheet,
enquiry/embezzlement was pending and the work and conduct was good.
Several employees who were senior to the plain"ffs and were due for
Selec"on Grade, have already approached the High Court through the writ
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014444
and thus, no ac"on to grant Selec"on Grade to others can be taken "ll the
decision of the writ. Thus, the defendants sought dismissal of the suit.
5. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the
par"es was taken on record. Learned trial Court decreed the suit by holding
that plain"ffs are en"tled to the grant of selec"on cadre in accordance with
their seniority. Defendants were directed to decide the ma?er for grant of
selec"on grade to the plain"ffs within 06 months from the date of receipt
of copy of the judgment. The findings as returned by the trial Court were
affirmed by the First Appellate Court on 08.10.1999.
6. Assailing the aforesaid findings, it is contended by the
appellants-defendants that courts below ignored the fact that selec"on
grade was to be granted on the basis of actual working posi"on and that at
the relevant "me, the actual cadre strength was 264 and as such only 52
Junior Engineers were eligible for grant of selec"on cadre being 20% of the
cadre strength. It is also contended that aIer 01.01.1986, no selec"on
grade is admissible because of the revision of the pay scales. It is contended
by learned counsel that courts below ignored the fact that Thermal
operators were not re-designated as Junior Engineers and that they had
been placed in the pay scale of 600 - 1100 and they were actually
designated as Thermal Supervisor Grade-II in accordance with the
Recruitment and Promo"on Policy for thermal projects adopted by the
Board vide order dated 27.05.1985 to be read with office dated 07.08.1985
and this way the cadre strength of Junior Engineer (Thermal) was reduced
and so the selec"on grade was to be granted on the basis of the actual
number of posts occupied and not on the basis of the cadre strength. It is
also contended that consolidated seniority list circulated by CE/O&M,
Panipat was challenged before the High Court by way of LPA No.613 of 1992
in CWP-11665-1999 "tled as 'Anil Vishwas another Vs. HSEB', which was yet
to come for final hearing and the same admi?ed on 12.05.1992 and as
such, the Courts below should not have entertained the suit.
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014444
7. Since there was no representa"on on behalf of the
respondents at the "me of hearing arguments, so the submissions made by
learned counsel for the appellants have been considered.
8. It will be useful to reproduce the observa"ons made by the
First Appellate Court regarding both the points, which have been raised by
the learned counsel and which were also urged before the First Appellate
Court. The same read as under:
"10. Apart from other controversies, the main controversy is as to what is
the total strength of the cadre. While the plain"ffs allege the strength to be
430 and claim that Selec"on Grade be granted to 20% of that strength, on the
other hand, the defendants allege the total strength of the cadre to be 264
and thus, 20% of that strength was en"tled for grant of Selec"on Grade.
Another controversy is, while plain"ffs seek grant of Selec"on Grade
immediately, on the other hand, the defendants pleaded that in view of the
writ pe""on pending in the Hon'ble High Court, the Selec"on Grade cannot
be granted to anyone "ll disposal of that writ. I have carefully gone through
the documentary evidence placed on record. The learned trial Court rightly
held that calcula"on made by the plain"ffs regarding exis"ng strength of
cadre of Jr. Engineers (Thermal) on the basis of Ex.P11 was incorrect because
redesigna"ons were later-on changed vide document Ex.DI, le?er dated
22.5.85 and further vide le?er dated 30.9.85. DW1-Shri K.L.Sachdeva
admi?ed in his cross-examina"on that sanc"oned strength of Jr. Engineers
was 384, which included 188 of Thermal Supervisors and 196 of Thermal
Operators and thus, the sanc"oned strength given in Ex.P1 was correct. He
further admi?ed that Thermal Operator and Thermal Supervisors were
redesignated as Jr. Engineers but Operators were not included therein. Thus, a
careful perusal of the documents and oral evidence coming on record, and
also that of statement made by DW-1, it stands established that total posts for
Selec"on Grade had sanc"oned strength of 384. The claim of the plain"ffs
that Operators numbering 46 as shown in list Ex.P11 were also included in
that strength, is not tenable because that claim stands belled from documents
Ex.D1 and D2. Thus, considering total strength of the cadre to be 384, the 20%
strength for grant of Selec"on Grade comes to 76 and thus, 76 persons were
en"tled for Selec"on Grade whereas the Selec"on Grade was released only
for 18 employees Thus, findings recorded by the learned Trial Court on that
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014444
point is correct and in accordance with the evidence and thus, is not liable to
be reversed or set aside.
11. However, as regards to the effect of the pendency of the writ
pe""on in the Hon'ble High Court, the learned Trial Court rightly observed
that the copy of writ pe""on was not placed on record and thus, he directed
the defendants to decide the ma?er of grant of Selec"on Grade to the
plain"ffs and others within six months from the receipt of copy of judgement
on apprecia"ng of their service records in accordance with the relevant rules
and instruc"ons of the department and if it was found by the department
that in the eventuality the Selec"on Grade could not be granted to the
plain"ffs in view of the writ pe""on, the case of the plain"ffs for grant of
Selec"on Grade could be disposed of by passing a specific order on record
apprecia"ng the facts of the pe""on. The observa"ons and the findings
recorded by the learned Trial Court on issues No.7 in the given facts and
circumstances of the case, are proper and not liable to be set aside. The
defendants are bound to consider the case of the plain"ffs for grant of
Selec"on Grade aIer considering their service records and also the effect of
the writ and then dispose of their case aIer passing proper and relevant-
orders."
9. It is clear from the aforesaid observa"ons of the first appellate
court that sanc"oned strength of Junior Engineers was found to be 384 on
the basis of admission made by the witness examined by the defendants-
appellants themselves & the documentary evidence and as such, the Courts
below rightly held that considering this total strength of the cadre, 20%
strength for the grant of selec"on grade comes to 76 and thus, 76 persons
were en"tled for the selec"on grade.
10. Apart from above, it is at the "me of filing of this appeal way
back in 2000 that it was stated in the appeal that some connected LPA was
pending before this Court. However, neither learned counsel for the
appellants has disclosed the fate of that LPA nor the learned counsel is able
to convince this Court as to how the LPA is connected with the fate of the
present appeal, inasmuch as plain"ffs/respondents are not party to that
LPA.
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014444
11. In view of the en"re discussion as above, this Court does not
find any error in the impugned judgment passed by the Courts below. There
is no ground to interfere in the well-reasoned concurrent findings of the
fact as recorded by the Courts below. No illegality or perversity is found in
the impugned judgments and as such, holding the present appeal to be
devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
31.01.2025 JUDGE
Pry
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
7 of 7
