IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.490 of 1997 alongwith CWP No.449 of 1997. Judgment reserved on:30.07.2009. Date of Decision: 3rd August, 2009. In CWP No.490 of 1997: Chura Mani …Petitioner. Versus. HPSEB …Respondent In CWP No.449 of 1997: Darshan Singh Guleria ….Petitioner Versus HPSEB and others …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Petitioner(s): M/s.K.D.Sood, B.C. Negi & B.N. Gupta, Advocates. For the Respondent(s): Mr.Baldev Singh, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. Both these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment since common questions of law and fact are involved in the same. Both the petitioners were appointed as T.Mates in work-charge capacity in the office of the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, 2 HPSEB, Kullu on 18.7.1980 in the scale of Rs.70-2-80. According to the petitioners, which fact is not disputed by the H.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), they were never given field work and were made to work as clerks-cum-typists. The petitioners were regularized on 5.10.1983. They were both promoted as Assistant Linemen in the scale of Rs.950-1800 in January, 1986. According to the petitioners they continued to perform clerical duties. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh in certain cases issued directions to the HPSEB to pay salary payable to clerks to the employees who were performing duties of clerks. It is not disputed that the pay scale of Assistant Lineman is identical to that of clerk. The petitioners however represented that since they were functioning as clerks, they should be treated in the ministerial cadre and given promotion in the ministerial cadre. They filed writ petitions before this Court which were dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, they filed O.As which have been rejected by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal vide orders dated 4.11.1997. Hence, the present writ petitions. We have heard S/Sh.K.D.Sood and B.C. Negi learned counsel for the petitioners and Sh.Baldev Singh, learned counsel for the Board. Sh.Negi has strenuously contended that in view of the documents placed on record there is ample power with the Board to change the category of an employee from field staff to ministerial 3 cadre. Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that since the petitioners have been doing the ministerial work right from the very beginning they should be permitted to continue to do such work and a direction be issued to the Board to absorb them in the ministerial cadre. We are afraid that such a direction cannot be issued. Admittedly, the petitioners first joined as T-Mates. They were confirmed as T-Mates and were promoted as Assistant Linemen. They were never recruited as clerks. The method of recruitment of clerks is totally different. Merely because the petitioners were permitted to perform the duty of clerks does not entitle them to be absorbed in the ministerial cadre. It would be relevant to mention that the learned Tribunal has held that the petitioners have all along been availing benefits which are available only to the field/technical staff such as provision for livery, stitching charges, washing allowances, articles of clothing etc. The mode of recruitment, the essential qualification etc. for Assistant Linemen and clerks are also different. Sh.Negi has brought to our notice one case in which on medical grounds an employee has been directed to be shifted from the field staff to the ministerial cadre. We are absolutely clear in our mind that no employee belonging to the technical side has a vested right to claim that he should be absorbed in the ministerial cadre. We find that for almost 12 years the petitioners have been allowed to continue in the ministerial side due to the orders 4 of this Court. The petitioners cannot be permitted to take benefit of the interim orders granted. They have no legal vested right to be absorbed in the ministerial side. We therefore find no merit in the writ petitions which are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. August 3, 2009 ( Surinder Singh ), PV. Judge.