IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 13852 of 2008. Decided on 13th July, 2011. _____________________________________________________ Sunil Dutt Bhardwaj. …Petitioner. -Versus- Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent. : Mr. Trilok Jamwal, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present lis is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Sh. Bharat Darshan and others Vs. H.P. State Electricity Board and others, Latest HLJ 2006, 818. He has referred to paragraphs No. 7 and 8 of the judgment, which read thus: “7. It is not in dispute that on the date(s) respondents 2 and 3 were promoted on adhoc basis, posts in the quota of AMIE Junior Engineers category to which belonged, were available, but they were not promoted on regular basis because DPC did not meet. It is only in 1994 that DPC met and found respondents 2 and 3 fit for promotion and approved of their promotion. Their promotion was not made as a stop gap arrangement, but it was according to the Rule which provided 6 quota for promotion to AMIE 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - Junior Engineers. Respondents 2 and 3 being fully qualified and eligible and their promotion being in accordance with Rule, their seniority had to be counted from the date(s) of their appointments on adhoc basis and not from the date the DPC approved their promotion. In this regard, reference may be made to direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association Versus State of Maharashtra and others (1990) 2 SCC 715, wherein the Constitution Bench held that once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that Administrative Tribunal committed no error in law in giving benefit to respondents 2 and 3 of their service on adhoc basis. The instructions on which the learned counsel for the petitioners is relying are contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Direct Recruit’s case (supra) and therefore, are of no help to the petitioners. 8. For the fore-going reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Pending application(s) shall also stand dismissed, in view of the dismissal of the writ petition.” 2. Consequently, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Board to consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (C/M) strictly as per the principles laid down in the judgment cited hereinabove, within a period of ten weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. In the eventuality of the petitioner being found suitable, he will be - 3 - entitled to all the consequential benefits. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge July 13, 2011. (bhupender) - 4 - `