IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA L.P.A. No: 148 of 2009 Judgment reserved on: 17.12.2009 Date of decision: 19th March, 2010 Chinta Mani …...Appellant VERSUS H.P. State Electricity Board and others …..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge For the Appellant: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Inder Kumar, vice counsel Per R.B. Misra, Judge Heard Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard Mr. Inder Kumar, learned vice counsel for the respondents. It appears that the appellant/writ petitioner filed an original application No. 1237 of 1996 before the erstwhile learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as the learned tribunal) against non implementation of the decision of the government order, dated 21.6.1993 for restoration of seniority of the appellant, denial of regular promotion as Chief Auditor, non grant of special pay to him, while holding the post of Chief Auditor in H.P. State Electricity Board (in short the `Board’) and for non issuance of 2 confirmation order in his favour. According to the appellant, he was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk in erstwhile State of Punjab in the year 1956 and on taking over by the Punjab State Electricity Board w.e.f. 1.2.1959, his services were transferred to the Punjab State Electricity Board. He was promoted to the post of Divisional Clerk in the year 1961 and on passing departmental examination, he was further promoted to the post of Assistant on 1.10.1965 and on trifurcation of the composite Punjab State Electricity Board, his services were transferred to the Board w.e.f. 1.1.1972. Subsequently, the appellant was promoted as Circle Scale Superintendent on 1.2.1972 and thereafter Superintendent and subsequently, Accounts Officer and Senior Accounts Officer in the year 1976 and 1981, respectively. The appellant was further promoted as Deputy Financial Advisor on 28.6.1986 and thereafter as Chief Auditor on 1.1.1995. From the pleadings and averments made by the parties and as has been noted by the learned Single Judge, it appears that respondent No. 2 Roshan Lal Kanwar had ranked above the appellant in the inter se seniority of the officers/superintendents in the Subordinate Accounts Services (SAS) cadre of board, issued vide Annexure A-6, dated 29.5.1974. It appears, the petitioner as well as similarly situated persons had made representations and the petitioner at time and again is alleged to have made representations for the above 3 mentioned relief. It has also been observed that the appellant had not made any representation in respect of order, dated 5.5.1976, rejecting the representation against the seniority list, dated 29.5.1974. The seniority list, which was said to have been settled by order, dated 29.5.1974, was said to be not un-settled after a lapse of considerable time, as has been noted by the learned Single Judge, specifically when the same has been challenged in the year 1996, i.e. much after the retirement of the petitioner. It has been noted by the learned Single Judge that if the petitioner was at all aggrieved by the seniority list, dated 29.5.1974, Annexure A-6, he could have filed a petition within a reasonable period of six months or at least one year. It has also been noted by the learned Single Judge that after the issuance of order, dated 29.5.1974, Annexure A-6, number of seniority lists were issued regarding the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, Accounts officer, Senior Accounts Officer and Deputy Financial Advisor between the year 1976 to 1991, which, however, for the reasons best known to the appellant were never assailed. The appellant, however, has not assailed the order, dated 5.5.1976 for the reasons best known to him, whereby representation made by the appellant was rejected. In these circumstances, it was not necessary for the board to consider the stale claim of the appellant merely on the basis of Annexure A-17, dated 21.6.1973. The claim of the 4 special pay of Rs. 50/-, while working as Chief Auditor, has also been said to be inadmissible to the appellant on the ground that it was only available upto the senior most Head of Department or Officers of accounts tribe and the appellant was not within the permissible zone, therefore, his demand of special pay was rightly rejected after receiving the requisite information from the Punjab Electricity Board. The demand of appellant of senior scale of Rs. 5900-7100 was rightly declined only on the ground that such a scale was granted to the senior most Head of Department/Officers on accounts side by the Punjab Electricity Board and since the appellant was not senior most officer on accounts side, in these circumstances, he genuinely was not entitled to scale of Rs. 5900-7100. In respect of the claim of appellant allowing his confirmation before respondent No. 2, it could be seen that respondent No. 2 was confirmed on 8.5.1991 and for passing an appropriate order of confirmation in favour of the appellant, he had submitted a representation on 11.11.1991. In this respect, it was noticed that a vigilance case was pending against the appellant and he was exonerated in the month of January, 1995. However, the State Government on 2.8.1994 had changed the instructions regarding confirmation of the employees, therefore, n view of the new instructions, confirmation in respect of an employee, was to be made only once in the entire career. In these circumstances, the decision of the board not to confirm the 5 appellant on the basis of the instructions issued on 2.8.1995 cannot be said to be illegal . We have carefully gone through the contents and averments made in the appeal. In our respectful consideration, we do not find any scope and occasion to interfere with the impugned order, dated 4.8.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 3993 of 2008. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. ( R.B. Misra ), Judge March 19th, 2010(K) (Sanjay Karol ), Judge