IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T)No.7810 of 2008 (OA No. 1548/2001) Judgement reserved on: 17.8.2009. Date of decision: 18.8.2009. Dina Nath …..Petitioner. Vs. H.P. State Electricity Board & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms Anjula Khajuria, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. S.R.Sharma, Advocte vice Mr. B.N. Misra, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Kuldip Singh, Judge. The petitioner had filed O.A. No. 1548 of 2001 before erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal). The Tribunal was abolished and O.A. No. 1548 of 2001 was transferred to this court in view of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (transfer of decided and pending cases and applications) Act, 2008, on transfer the O.A. No. 1548 of 2001 has been registered in this Court as CWP(T) No. 7810 of 2008. 2. The petitioner in the petition has prayed for a direction to respondents No. 1 & 2 to promote him as fitter/ electrician or sub- station attendant from the date his juniors were promoted with all Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… consequential benefits w.e.f. 31.12.1999 considering the said date as the date of promotion. It has also been prayed that respondent No.1- Board may be directed to place the petitioner in the seniority list at appropriate position particularly above respondent No.3. 3. The petitioner made representation Annexure A-3 to Senior Executive Engineer against Annexure A-1 dated 30.1.1999. The petitioner in the representation has stated that respondent No. 3 could not be given precedence over the petitioner while considering the seniority of petitioner and respondent No. 3 inasmuch as respondent No. 3 was younger in age in comparison to petitioner. The petitioner made request to respondent No. 1 to rectify the defect and the promotion of the petitioner to the post of fitter/ electrician be made. 4. The case of the petitioner as projected in the petition is that petitioner initially joined the service with respondent No.1- Board on 30.9.1989. On 31.12.1999 the respondent No. 1 on the recommendations of Class III Departmental Promotion Committee (Technical Staff) had promoted some helpers of power house as fitters/ electricians in the pay scale of Rs.4600-7250 from the date of their actually taking over of new service responsibility. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 had given their joining in the office of respondent-Board on 30.9.1989, which is clear from the integrated provisional seniority list of helpers (power house) Annexure-A 2 as it stood on 1.1.1998. The petitioner being older in age was to be given seniority above respondent No.3. …3… 5. Some similarly situated persons such as Dori Lal, Sambhu Dutt, Leela Dutt (Helpers Power house) mentioned in integrated seniority list Annexure A-2 were also promoted as sub station attendants vide office order dated 31.12.1999 Annexure A-4. According to petitioner, he is senior to all of them. The date of birth of the petitioner has not been given due consideration while fixing the seniority of the petitioner. The integrated provisional seniority list as it stood on 1.1.1998 was wrongly prepared by respondent No. 1 and position of petitioner has been shown wrongly in the said list. The petitioner should have been promoted as fitter/ electrician in the pay scale of Rs.4600-7250, the respondent No. 3 has been wrongly promoted in illegal manner and thus Annexure A-1 vide which the respondent No. 3 has been promoted is wrong and illegal. The respondent No. 1 has resorted arbitrariness. It has been pleaded that perusal of Annexure A-4 would show that many juniors of petitioner have been promoted as sub-station attendants. 6. The petition has been contested by respondents No. 1 and 2 by filing reply. They have pleaded that petitioner belongs to category of helper (power house). The helpers (power house) are regulated by separate Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, which were notified on 7.8.1991. The helpers (power house) as per regulations are promoted as electricians (power house). The seniority of helpers (power house) was circulated vide letter dated 10.12.1999 Annexure RA/II. The petitioner never represented and/ or preferred objections against the seniority list. There were certain vacancies in the cadre of electrician (power of house)/ fitter, therefore, competent …4… authority promoted respondent No. 3 and one Sukh Dev as fitter/ electrician on the basis of seniority position. The action of respondents is perfectly legal. The claim of petitioner for promotion shall also be considered by the competent authority as and when his turn will come for promotion on the basis of seniority and subject to availability of post. The petitioner has filed rejoinder and reiterated his case. 7. The seniority list of helper (power house) as it stood on 1.1.1999 was circulated vide letter dated 10.12.1999 Annexure RA/II. In the said seniority list the petitioner has been shown below one Sukh Dev and respondent No. 3, both of whom were promoted vide office order dated 31.12.1999 annexure A-1 as fitter/ electrician in the pay scale of Rs.4600-7250. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have specifically pleaded in para-1 of the preliminary submissions that petitioner never represented and/ or preferred objections against the seniority list Annexure RA/II. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply of respondents No. 1 and 2 and in reply to para-1 of preliminary submissions, he has not specifically denied the assertion of respondents No. 1 and 2 that no objections were filed by him against the seniority list circulated vide letter dated 10.12.1999, nor petitioner has pleaded that in fact he has filed objections against the seniority list circulated vide letter dated 10.12.1999. Thus the petitioner by his conduct has accepted the seniority position circulated vide letter dated 10.12.1999. 8. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been contended that petitioner being older in age in comparison to respondent No.3, …5… therefore, he should have been shown senior to respondent No. 3 in the seniority list and consequently should have been promoted earlier to respondent No. 3 as fitter/ electrician in the pay scale of Rs.4600- 7250. In fact, the case of the petitioner is that his junior has been promoted and he has been ignored. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any rule in support of his contention that since the petitioner is older in age and has joined on the same date on which date the respondent No. 3 has joined the service of the Board, therefore, the petitioner is senior to respondent No.3. The seniority list circulated vide letter dated 10.12.1999 Annexure RA/II clearly indicates that petitioner is junior to respondent No.3. The petitioner has failed to make out any case that he is senior to respondent No. 3 and should have been promoted as fitter/ electrician earlier to respondent No. 3 or at-least from the date when respondent No. 3 was promoted as fitter/ electrician. The petitioner even in the petition has not prayed for quashing of seniority list circulated vide letter annexure RA/II, where he has been shown junior to respondent No.3. There is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. August 18 , 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.