Civil Writ Petition No. 9458 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 9458 of 2010 Date of decision : March 21, 2011 Om Parkash .....Petitioner VERSUS Dakshin Haryana Vidut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. JK Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. S. Kundu, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. On 28.2.1992, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Helper Grade-II in Haryana State Electricity Board, (now known as Dakshin Haryana Vidut Parsaran Nigam Ltd.). While working as Helper Grade-II, the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Lineman. He was, accordingly, selected and appointed as Assistant Lineman. The appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Lineman, was challenged before this Court by various persons. This Court found the selection to be bad and accordingly, quashed the same. The order was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As a result thereof, the appointments made for the post of Assistant Lineman were, therefore, annulled and services were Civil Writ Petition No. 9458 of 2010 -2- terminated. It appears that while quashing the selection, the Court allowed the previous selected candidates to be considered without applying afresh. Such candidates were allowed to appear in written test and in interviews on the basis of previous applications. The petitioner, accordingly, appeared in the written test held on 8.10.1997 and was again selected to the post of Assistant Lineman. He was afforded a fresh appointment as Assistant Lineman and had joined on 9.10.1997. He has, accordingly, prayed for continuity of service from 28.2.1992 when he had joined as Helper Grade II and had worked as such till 3.3.1993. The petitioner has requested the authorities by submitting various representations for treating him continuously in service. He submitted a legal notice on 19.10.2009 that he be given benefit of service from 28.2.1992 to 8.10.1997. As per the petitioner, similar benefits have been given to some other employees. The petitioner says that his claim has been rejected on 18.1.2010 by passing a non- speaking and sketchy order. The petitioner, accordingly, has filed this writ petition to pray for grant of continuity of service from 28.2.1992 to 8.10.1997. The respondents have filed reply. It is not disputed in the reply that the services of the petitioner were terminated and he was again appointed a Assistant Lineman on 8.10.1997. In response to the legal notice, it is stated that the petitioner was apprised about his ineligibility for grant of benefit of continuity of service. It is noticed that the services of the petitioner were terminated and he was given Civil Writ Petition No. 9458 of 2010 -3- fresh appointment, where he joined on 8.9.1997. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Rohtas Verus Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (CWP No.3725 of 2006) decided on 27.5.2008, where similar benefit has been granted. The facts as noticed would clearly show that earlier appointment of the petitioner was set aside. The date on which the appointment was set aside, is not forthcoming from the record. Once the appointment was set aside and was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not understood as to how the petitioner can seek continuity of service for the said period, during which he may have served on appointment as Assistant Lineman, which ultimately was found to be suffering from some infirmity and was set aside. Apparently, the petitioner has not framed the writ petition properly and has also not sought the relief in a proper manner. What appears to have happened is that the petitioner initially was appointed as Helper Grade II in the year 1992. subsequently, he was selected as Assistant Lineman, which appointment was set aside. The grievance appears to be that appointment as Helper Grade II has not been set aside and once his appointment as Assistant Lineman was set aside, he was entitled to continue as Helper Grade II. This is what has been observed in a judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, annexed with the petition as Annexure P-5. The appointment after having been set aside in the year 1997, he was reappointed though afresh w.e.f. 8.10.1997. The petitioner could be expected to approach the Court immediately in Civil Writ Petition No. 9458 of 2010 -4- case he wanted his service from 1992 onward to be counted. The petitioner has not placed anything on record to show that his appointment as Helper Grade-II, has also been made ineffective. It would be appropriate for the petitioner to come up with proper averments revealing all the necessary facts, only then an appropriate order can be passed. As per the averments made in the present writ petition, it is not clear whether the petitioner is asking for counting his service of Helper Grade II or as an Assistant Lineman. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition with proper averments. March 21, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE Civil Writ Petition No. 9458 of 2010 -5- March 21, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE