IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 9264/2008 Reserved on: 16.6.2011 Decided on:23.6. 2011 _____________________________________________ Kuldeep Kumar. …Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Jeevesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for respondent No.8. None for other respondents. ____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner was appointed as Telephone Attendant on 1.1.1980. Respondent-Board had taken a conscious decision to re-designate the post of Telephonist/ Telephone Attendant as Electrician vide notification dated 23.5.1995. However, the petitioner was not re- designated as Electrician as per order dated 23.5.1995. He made several representations to the respondent- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Board to re-designate him as Electrician. In the meantime, respondent-Board took a decision on 1.4.1997 to grant seniority to all re-designated Electricians from their initial date of appointment. In sequel to various representations made by the petitioner, respondent- Board had taken a conscious decision to re-designate him as Electrician on 11.9.1998. Persons junior to the petitioner were promoted as Junior Engineer vide orders Annexure P-11 and P-12. In the seniority list issued vide Annexure P-14, petitioner was assigned Sr. No.2. However, respondent-Board vide Annexures P-1 and P-2 has withdrawn the seniority assigned to the petitioner as Electrician and order dated 22.10.1998 whereby the petitioner was re-designated as Electrician. Respondent- Board made further promotions from the category of Electrician to the post of Junior Engineer vide Annexure P-12 dated 12.1.1999. 2. Mr. Jeevesh Verma has vehemently argued that neither any notice was issued to his client nor he was given the opportunity of being heard before the issuance of Annexures P-1 and P-2. He then contended that a conscious decision was taken by the respondent- Board whereby the category to which the petitioner belongs was re-designated as Electrician. 3 3. Ms. Anjula Khajuria and Mr. Rajesh Verma have argued that the petitioner was re-designated as Electrician from the category of Telephone Attendant wrongly. According to them, the incumbents who were working in Generation Wing were to be re-designated as Electrician and the incumbents, who were working in Project Wing could not be re-designated as Electrician. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings meticulously. 5. A decision had been taken on 23.5.1995 to re- designate the category of Telephone Attendant as Electrician. Petitioner has also been re-designated as Electrician on 11.9.1998. He has been assigned seniority after re-designating him as per Annexure P-14. The incumbents who had already been re-designated as Electricians were promoted as Junior Engineer vide order dated 12.1.1999. A decision has been taken to withdraw letter dated 22.10.1998 and to change the seniority of the petitioner also vide Annexure P1 and P-2. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been heard before the decision was taken unilaterally to withdraw the order whereby the petitioner was re-designated and was assigned the seniority. Petitioner has suffered civil and evil 4 consequences as no decision could be taken to his detriment without affording him opportunity of hearing. 6. Ms. Anjula Khajuria and Mr. Rajesh Verma have vehemently argued that there was error in re- designating the petitioner as Electrician and the same has been rectified vide Annexures P-1 and P-2. According to them, since the petitioner belongs to Project Wing, he could not be re-designated as Electrician. They have also argued that the petitioner was required to be re-designated as Station Attendant and not Electrician. Petitioner should have been heard before the action detrimental to his interest was taken to explain his position the manner in which he has been re-designated and assigned seniority. Since there is violation of the principles of natural justice, Annexures P-1 and P-2 are declared null and void. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the present petition is allowed. Annexures P-1 and P-2 are quashed and set aside. However, opportunity is reserved to the respondent-Board to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 23.6. 2011*awasthi*