IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2167 of 2008. Decided on: 24.11.2010. __________________________________________________ Shri N.K. Kaistha … Petitioner. Versus H.P. State Electricity Board. ... Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Ms. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For respondent : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers:- “7 (i). Quash the provisional seniority list circulated on 12.12.91 (Annexure A-5) as well as the finalized seniority position (Annexure A-8) as on 1.5.1993 which has been filed in O.A. No. 1909/91. (ii). Direct the respondent to consider the applicant to be a Graduate Engineer and consider him for promotion in the quota of Graduate Engineers, i.e. on 1.6.1977 and on 4.5.1978 when he was promoted as ad hoc and regular basis respectively.” 2. The respondent has taken the following stand vide para (4) of the legal submissions and para 6 (vii) of the reply on merits: “Legal submissions: (4). That as submitted in preceding paras, the replying respondent was obliged to draw, devise and circulate the tentative seniority list of Executive Engineer (Electrical) as a consequence of and in implementing the ratio 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 of the said judgment in T.A. No. 52/87 so as to enable the replying respondent to consider all the nine petitioners along with other eligible officers for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer on the basis of merit and suitability against posts usurped by respondent No.2 to 6 (in TA No. 52 of 87). The said judgment has since received finality inasmuch as one of the private respondent in T.A. No. 52 of 1987 namely Er. V.P. Gupta preferred a review petition before this ld. Tribunal for reviewing the orders/judgment dated 29.10.1991 but did not succeed. The said Er. V.P. Gupta also filed a Special Leave Petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the said SLP also met the same fate as the same has been dismissed on 17./2.1992. Thus it is manifestly clear that the said judgment dated 28.10.1991 rendered in T.A. No. 52/87 by the ld. Tribunal carries with it a seal of approval of the apex court. Consequently, no grounds are disclosed warranting interference. Therefore, it is only as a consequence of implementation and giving effect to the said judgment dated 28.10.1991 that the placement/position earlier assigned to the present applicant has undergone a slight change and rightly so, on account of the implementation and the application of the said decision. In these facts and circumstances, the application is not maintainable and deserves only outright dismissal. Reply Para-wise: (vii). It is denied that the applicant was considered as graduate candidate at the time of his promotion as Executive Engineer. In fact he was promoted as Executive Engineer (Electrical) against the quota earmarked for 3 Diploma Holders as already submitted in reply to para 6 (iii) supra. At the relevant time he accepted the promotion and no representations were made by the applicant at any time to consider him against the quota meant for Degree Holders. Hence no legal and vested rights of the applicant herein have been deprived. The representation of the applicant has already been considered and rejected and he has been informed accordingly vide letter No. HPSEB (SECTT)/101-75/93-81810 dated 29.8.1993.” 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has since retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. 4. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner has any grievance surviving with regard to factual and legal aspect of the matter, it will be open to him to make a representation along with copy of this judgment within one month from today to the respondent which shall be considered and decided by the respondent within next three months in the light of representation dated 28.12.1991, Annexure A-6 and Recruitment & Promotion Regulations issued vide notification dated 28.12.1973, Annexure A/10, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. Needless to say that consequential benefits, if any, shall ensue the decision on the representation. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. November 24, 2010. (cr)