IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 4218/2008 (OA 429/97) Date of Decision : April 20, 2009 Sh. Tarajit Petitioner Versus H.P. State Electricity Board and another Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner. For the respondents : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner was working as an Assistant Foreman when persons who were similarly situated were promoted as Foreman, totally ignoring the petitioner’s claim. By way of present writ petition the petitioner is seeking the same benefits which have been accorded to Shri Vijay Kumar, Shri Madan Lal, Shri Mohinder Singh and Shri Harbhajan Singh whose names appear at serial numbers 66, 68, 88 and 209 of the seniority list of Foreman. 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 As per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules the post of Foreman (Line) is to be filled by 100% promotion. The eligibility criteria laid down is as under: “By promotion from amongst T/Mate having minimum service in the grade as under:- a) With ITI certificate having 2 years regular service. b) Matriculate having 4 years regular service. c) Others having 6 years regular service.” From the seniority list circulated (Annexure A-3) it is evident that the date of appointment of the aforesaid persons with the respondent board/department as also the date of appointment on the post of Foreman is the same. It is thus evident that said respondents were not promoted but were appointed by way of direct recruitment. In its reply the respondents have sought to justify the appointment of the above mentioned persons, by stating that they were actually working as certified welders and their post was re- designated as that of Foreman. Importantly, record also reveals that the post on which petitioner was working as Assistant Foreman was also re-designated as Foreman. Why same and similar benefit was not granted to the petitioner is not clear from the record. Simply because the petitioner was working on work charge basis would not make any difference as on the date when the aforesaid persons were appointed and/or their post redesignated the 3 petitioner fulfilled the eligibility criteria laid down in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Any which way petitioner is entitled for benefit of promotion. In this view of the matter the stand taken by the respondent/board is untenable and unsustainable in law. Respondents are thus directed to accord same and similar benefits which have been afforded to the similarly situated persons. The respondents shall take action within three months from today and also release consequential benefits before the said date. With the aforesaid observations the present writ petition is allowed and is disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 20, 2009 (PK)