IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. : 2577 of 2008 Decided on : 22.10.2010 Kamal Dev & Others … Petitioners. Versus H.P. State Electricity Board and Ors. … Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 & 2 : Ms. Anjula Kharuira, Advocate For respondent No. 16: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. ________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.(Oral). The petitioner has filed the present petition with the following prayers: - “7. (i). To set-aside and quash the seniority list annexure-P-1 issued by the respondent No.1 and 2/ Board vide letter No. CE(T)/EL-2-1/94-7513-38, dated 30.12.1994 and further to assign the petitioners their correct place in the seniority list of the Linemen in the respondents Board above the respondent No.3 to 22. (ii). To direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to promote the petitioners to the post of Linemen and further to the post of Foremen with all consequential reliefs from the same dates as and when the respondent No.3 and 4 were promoted to the post of Linemen and further to the post of Foremen in the respondents Board.” 2. In the reply para 1 (ii) it is stated as follows:- ..the petitioners herein were initially appointed as T/Mates (Work-charged) on and w.e.f. 7/12/73 & 6/12/73 respectively under Grid Sub-Station Const. Division, Bilaspur. Thereafter, the applicants herein were appointed as Assistant Linemen (work-charged) by the competent authority on fresh contract of employment on and w.e.f. 12/10/76. The services of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 applicant No. 1 & 2 were regularized in the cadre of Assistant Linemen by the competent authority on and w.e.f. 6/2/80 respectively whereas the applicant No.3 was transferred to other Trans. Division/ office and presently he is working under Trans. Division Solan being a separate Division under the replying respondents, and his services also stand regularized as Assistant Linemen on and w.e.f. 1/6/83 by the competent authority. So far as the question of respondents No.3 to 22 is concerned, the replying respondents submit with utmost respect that respondents No. 3 to 22 wee initially appointed as Assistant Linemen w.e.f. 24/2/77 and thereafter Lineman (work-charged) w.e.f. 30/7/78 and consequently respondents No. 3 to 14 stand promoted to the post of Foreman by the competent authority whereas the applicants herein were promoted as Lineman from the post of ALM on and w.e.f. 4/9/84 and consequently they were assigned due and appropriate place in the seniority framed and circulated by the replying respondents as it stood on 1/1/94, a copy whereof is placed on record as Annexure-RA-I. Thus the action of the replying respondents is perfectly legal, intra-vires and consequently warrants no interference by this ld. Tribunal. “ 3. Further at page 58, para 6 (ii) it is also stated thus:- “The comparative of posts held by the petitioners and respondent given in para supra, it would be apparent that the respondents No. 3 to 17 have held higher posts carrying higher duties and responsibilities in W/C cadre than that of attached to the post of ALM. Moreover, the fact that the petitioners are senior as ALM (W/C) to the respondents 3 to 5 by 10 months is correct. But the benefit for assigning seniority to them above the respondents in the grade of Linemen ® can’t be extended on the following grounds:- (i) that no promotional avenues for these categories of staff were available in absence of any R&P Regulations for W/C staff. The person recruited on W/C establishment had to continue on the post till his regularization. On regularization, he is eligible for further promotional avenues in accordance with the provisions of R&P Regulations. Thus the seniority to the petitioners and respondents has been drawn and assigned on the post on which they were regularized. (ii) That the respondents 3 to 5 have held higher posts with effect from 7/77 to 31/5/83 in work-charged establishment upto the date of their regularization on 1/6/83. Whereas the petitioners 1 & 2 have held lower posts as ALM (W/C) and ALM( R). 3 Thus the seniority of petitioners and respondents 3 to 5 in work-charged establishment in absence of any R&P Regulations cannot be assigned/ determined. The petitioners 1 & 2 were brought on to the regular establishment on the post of ALM w.e.f. 6/2/80, their seniority and promotional avenues were regulated in accordance with the provisions contained in the R&P Regulations dated 26/3/74. The respondents 3 to 5 were continued on work-charged establishment in the posts on which they were appointed earlier and were not eligible for any further promotion in W/C establishment. Thus the seniority of petitioners and respondents as ALM( R) and Lineman (W/C) can not be compared and clubbed in absence of R&P Regulations for W/C staff and in violation of the existing R&P Regulations for regular staff. In view of the facts stated in para-supra, the question of placing the petitioners above the respondents in the seniority does not arise.” 4. In view of the stand taken in the reply, in case the petitioners have still any surviving grievance regarding their seniority, it will be open to them to approach first respondent within a period one month, in which case the first respondent shall take appropriate action in accordance with law within a period of another four months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 5. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice V.K.Sharma) Judge. 22nd October, 2010 cr / Pritam