IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 12976 of 2008. Decided on: 31.8.2011. __________________________________________________________ Trilok Chand … Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board … Respondent. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers, vide para 7 (i) and (ii):- “(i). That the respondent Board may be directed to consider the claim of applicant for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (C/M) from due date i.e. the date he became eligible for such promotion and post became available for his promotion against quota prescribed for AMIE Junior Engineers with all consequential benefits including fixation of his seniority at the appropriate places, with all consequential benefits such as further promotion to the higher post(s) and arrears of salary etc. (ii). That the respondent Board may be directed to fix the seniority of applicant in the cadre of Assistant Engineers (C/M) from the date of his ad hoc promotion followed by his regularization on the principle of continuous officiation with all consequential benefits.” 2. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner states at the very outset that the case of the petitioner is covered under a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sh. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Bharat Darshan and others vs. H.P. State Electricity Board and others, 2006 Latest HLJ 818, paras No. 7 & 8 whereof are as follows:- “7. It is not in dispute that on the date(s) respondents 2 and 3 were promoted on ad hoc basis, posts in the quota of AMIE Junior Engineers category to which belonged, were available, but they were not promoted on regular basis because DPC did not meet. It is only in 1994 that DPC met and found respondents 2 and 3 fit for promotion and approved of their promotion. Their promotion was not made as a stop gap arrangement, but it was according to the Rule which provided 6 quota for promotion to AMIE Junior Engineers. Respondents 2 and 3 being fully qualified and eligible and their promotion being in accordance with Rule, their seniority had to be counted from the date(s) of their appointments on ad hoc basis and not from the date the DPC approved their promotion. In this regard, reference may be made to direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association Versus State of Maharashtra and others (1990) 2 SCC 715, wherein the Constitution Bench held that once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that Administrative Tribunal committed no error in law in giving benefit to respondents 2 and 3 of their service on ad hoc basis. The instructions on which the learned counsel for the petitioners is relying are contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Direct Recruit’s case (supra) and therefore, are of no help to the petitioners. 8. For the fore-going reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Pending application(s) shall also stand dismissed, in view of the dismissal of the writ petition.” 3 3. In view of the above, if on facts the case of the petitioner is covered under the judgment referred to hereinabove in Sh. Bharat Darshan and others vs. H.P. State Electricity Board and others, 2006 Latest HLJ 818 and if the same has attained finality and has been implemented and the petitioner is similarly situate, he shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and benefit of the said judgment shall be extended to him along with consequential benefits, if any, within three months from the date of production of copies of this judgment and the judgment referred to hereinabove by the petitioner before the respondent/competent authority. 4. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) August 31, 2011. Judge. (cr)