HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting.) (Chapter VIII Rule 32 (2) (b) Description of the case. W.P. No. 6865/01 (S/S) Uttaranchal Vidut Karmchari and others. VS U.P. States and others. Approved for reporting Not approved for reporting Date of decision: 25.03.2006 Initial of Judge 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRTI PETITION NO.6865 (SS) OF 2001 (Old No. 4127/97) 1. Uttarakhand Vidyut Karmchari Sangh, 5-A, Teg Bahadur Marg, Dehradun through its Zonal Secretary, through its L.S. Aswal. 2. L.S. Aswal, aged about 40 years, son of late Sri M.S. Aswal Zonal Secretary, Uttarakhand Vidyut Karmchari Sangh, 5-A, Teg Bahadur Marg, Dehradun. 3. Rakesh Sharma, S/o Shri V.D. Sharma, aged about 43 years, Vidyut Parikshan Khand, Dehradun. 4. Satyendra Rawat, S/o Sri Surendra Singh, aged about 43 years, Vidyut Parikshan Khand, Dehradun. 5. J.P.Gairola, aged about 44 years, S/o Sri Ram Gaurala, Vidyut Parikshan Khand, Dehradun. 6. Kunwar Singh Aswal, aged about 44 years, S/o Sri Sunder Singh, Vidyut Parikshan Khand, Dehradun. 7. Gurudeo Singh, aged about 44 years, S/o Sri Rekha Singh, Vidyut Vitran Khand, Dehradun. 8. Sardara Singh Bhojal, aged about 40 years, S/o Sri Preetam Singh, Vidyut Vitran Khand Dehradun. 9. Yashwant Singh Rawat, aged about 44 years, son of Sri Govind Singh, Vidyut Vitran Khand, Dehradun. 10. Jagannath Panyuli, aged about 44 years, S/o Sri Shakti Prasad, Vidyut Vitran Khand, Dehradun. 11. Amar Singh, aged about 44 years, S/o Sri Salekoo Singh, Vidyut Vitran Khand, Dehradun. 12. S.P. Juyla, aged about 45 years, S/o Sri C.P. Juyal, Vidyut Vitran Khand, Tehri. 13. S.P. Bhatt, aged about 45 years, S/io Sri Natthi Prasad Bhatt, Vidyut Vitran Khand, Uttarkashi. 14. R.S. Uniyal, aged about 45 years, S/o Sri Mani Ram, Vidyut Vitran Khand, Uttarkashi. 15. D.S. Bisht, aged about 45 years, S/o Sri Sultan Singh, Vidyut Vitran Khand, Uttarkashi. 16. Ashaf Ali, aged about 45 years, S/o Sri Vidyut Vitran Khand, Dehradun. ………..Petitioners. Versus 1. U.P. State Electricity Board through its Chairman, 14 Ashok Marg, Lucknow. 2. Chief Engineer, Hydle, U.P. State Electricity Board, 4 Vikramaditya Marg, Lucknow. 3 3. Principal Secretary, Uttarakhand Vikas Anubhag, Government of U.P. Lucknow. 4. The Electricity Service Commission, U.P., Lucknow through its Secretary. 5. Area Chief Engineer (Distribution), Uttarakhand Kshetra, U.P.S.E.B., Staff College, Dehradun. ………………Respondents. Mr. R.D. Khare, Advocate for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Dated: 25.03.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. By the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to declare the result of the petitioners for the examinations held in the year 1985 and promote them from thue year 1985 itself on the post of Junior Engineer. Further prayer has been made for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to fill up the vacancies of Hill Sub Cadre which are lying vacant from among the petitioners only who belong to the said cadre by promoting them to the post of Junior Engineer. Further prayer has been made for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay the petitioners salary, allowances and other consequential benefits on their promoted post of Junior Engineer form the year, 1985 or at least from the date when similarly situated employees of Obra Project have been promoted. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioners are the members of the petitioner no. 1, which is a registered Sangthan of the Uttarakhand Vidyut Karmcharis and are working in the respondents department for the last more than twenty years and are holding different posts in the operating cadre of U.P.S.E.B. as Junior Motor Tester, Sub-Station Operation Meter Reader and Junior Electrician etc. 3. In the year, 1985, a departmental examination was conducted at various zonal centre all over the U.P. by 4 amending Rules vide order dated 8th August, 1985. Thereafter the interview letters were issued to all the eligible candidates and the interview also held, but the grievance of the petitioners is that the result of the said examination has not been declared till date. 4. Petitioners have submitted that their posts are the feeding cadre of promotional of Junior Engineer in Class III cadre in higher pay scale and as the petitioners have all requisite qualifications to be considered for promotion on the post of Junior Engineer in the Subordinate Electrical Services. 5. Petitioners have submitted that again in the year, 1977- 79 similar written test and interviews were held but no result was declared and the employees were kept at large. 6. It is the submission of the petitioners that on the one hand while the results of the examinations and interview held in the year, 1985 was not declared, on the other hand the respondents started doing direct recruitment on the post of Junior Engineer in the year, 1989. Therefore, many of the class III employees who had appeared in the 1986 examinations approached this Hon’ble Court by means of the writ petition, in which after hearing the parties, Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass an interim order thereby directing the respondents ‘until the results of 1985 examinations are declared and the employees eligible are promoted, there shall be no recruitment process, however, in spite of the clear cut directions of this Hon’ble Court, the result has not been declared so far. 7. It has further been submitted that inspite of the fact that result has not been declared, the employees, who appeared in the examinations in the year, 1985 posted at Obra Project of the respondents, have been promoted as Junior Engineer in the year, 1991-92 and they are getting their salary, allowances and other consequential benefits attached to the said post of 5 Junior Engineer, whereas the petitioners who had also appeared in the said examination of 1985 and had strong believe to be successful, have been deprived of the promotion, salary and other allowances attached to the post of Junior Engineer. There are 63 posts of Junior Engineers which are lying vacant in Uttarakhand, Garhwal Zone and are to be filled up for amongst the employees of feeder cadre belonging to Hill Sub Cadre i.e. petitioners. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the position of vacancy in other zones like Nainital are also lying vacant which are to be filled up from amongst the eligible employees of 1985 examinations and interviews, to which the petitioners belong. Inspite of the fact that there is requirement of filling up the vacancies as many as 63 posts the petitioners are not being promoted, whereas similarly situated other employees posted at Obra Project have been promoted in the year, 1991-92, which is discriminatory and violative of principles of natural justice. 9. It has further been submitted that the post of Junior Engineers in U.P.S.E.B. is filled up from two sources namely 67% through direct recruitment and 33% through promotions from amongst the employees of the operation cadre to which petitioners belong, as per U.P.S.E.B.C. Subordinate Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Services Regulations, 1972, however, after introduction of Hill Sub Cadre are to be filled up 100% from amongst the employees of Hill Cadre only and after accommodating and exhausting members of Hill Cadre, the rest of the posts may be filled up by general cadre in accordance with the Rule 6 and 7 of the Hill Sub Cadre Rules. 10. The petitioners, therefore, have a grievance that inspite of the clear-cut provision, the respondents are neither 6 declaring the result of 1985 test and interview nor they are promoting the petitioners to the post of Junior Engineer. 11. However, in view of the above, liberty is given to the petitioners to file a fresh detailed representation stating their grievances along with the rules within a period of two weeks from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order. If such a representation is filed, the same shall be disposed of within a period of six weeks thereafter on its own merits, promoting the petitioner on the post of Junior considering the seniority of the petitioners form the date of their initial appointment and paying them arrears of salary. 12. Wirt petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 25.03.2006 Rathour