IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 9209 of 2008 Date of decision: 30.03.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Suresh Raj. .....Petitioner. Versus H.P. State Electricity Board , & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4. None for respondents No. 5, 6, 8 and 9, though duly served. Notice awaited for respondent No. 7. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers: “1. That the D.P.C. held by the respondents for the promotion to the post of electrician with respect to respondent No. 5 to 9 be quashed and set aside. 2. That D.P.C. be held a fresh by considering the applicant for the promotion to the post of electrician.” 2. In reply, respondents No. 1 to 4 have taken the following stand vide the relevant portion of para 1 of the preliminary submissions: “In context, the replying respondents submit with utmost respect that the name of applicant Sh. Suresh Raj is appearing at Sr. No. 30 of the revised final 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... seniority list of the Helper Power House (electrical) as it stood on 31.1.2000 issued by the Deputy Chief Engineer, Generation Circle, HPSEB, Palampur vide letter No. GCP/ET-8/2001-1049-53 dated 19.5.2001 (copy attached as Annexure-RA-I) Whereas the name of respondents Nos. 5 to 9 are at Sr. No. 35, 37, 45, 47 and 48. The applicant joined the Deptt. on 21.2.87 as Beldar (Workcharge) and regularised as such on 30.7.88. Lateron the post of Beldar was re-designated by the Board as Helper Power house w.e.f. 17.12.99., whereas the respondent No. 5 to 9 are working on regular basis as Helper Power House w.e.f. 3.2.97. The applicant was re-designated as Helper w.e.f. 17.12.99 from Beldars vide HPSEB, office order No. HPSEB (Sectt)/321-20/99-87530-600 dated 17.12.99 read with No. 95024-94 dated 6.1.2000 (placed below as Annexure-RA-II & RA-III) respectively. In view of this decision they have been allowed notional seniority over those daily waged who are/were appointed/brought on regular cadre as Helper prior to re-designation. As per the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, their eligibility criteria for the promotion to the post of Electrician Power House (Electrical) is required to be considered from the date of their re-designation as Helper i.e. 17.12.99 and as such he is not fulfilling the eligibility criteria presently. However no such promotion orders of this category have been issued as yet. It is not understood as to how the above named applicant has come to know about ignoring his name. Therefore the O.A. is not maintainable and deserves only dismissal.” 3. Rejoinder, refuting the above stand on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 and reiterating the averments set up in the petition, has been filed. 4. It is manifest from the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 that in the revised final seniority list of Helpers (P/H) Elect., as it stood on 31.01.2000 whereas the petitioner was figuring at serial No. 30, respondents No. 5 to 9 were at serial Nos. 35, 37, 45, 47 and 48, respectively. Thus, in the cadre of Helpers (P/H) Elect., the petitioner was senior to respondents No. 5 to 9. It is admitted case of respondents No. 1 to 4 that the petitioner had joined the respondent-Board as Beldar (W/ C) on 21.2.1987 and was regularized as such on 30.07.1988. Later ...3... on, the post of Beldar was re-designated as Helper (P/H) w.e.f. 17.12.1999. However, further case of respondents No. 1 to 4 is that whereas respondents No. 5 to 9 were working as Helpers (P/H) on regular basis w.e.f. 03.02.1997, the petitioner was re-designated as Helpers w.e.f. 17.12.1999, meaning thereby that whereas respondents No. 5 to 9 were working as Helpers earlier to the petitioner, though in the cadre of Helpers (P/H) Elect., he was admittedly senior to respondents No. 5 to 9. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No. 1 to 4/competent authority that subject to the petitioner making a representation supported by documents alongwith copy of this judgment within one month from today, the same shall be considered and a final decision taken in the matter by the said respondents/competent authority within next three months in accordance with law and the observations made hereinabove, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and respondents No. 5 to 9, if so advised. 6. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 30th March, 2011 (virender)