IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 511 of 2008. Judgement reserved on: 24.11.2010. Date of decision: 25.11.2010. Hira Singh …..Petitioner. Vs. HPSEB & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. L.N.Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Kuldip Singh, Judge. The petitioner has prayed mainly the following reliefs in the petition:- (i) That the impugned promotion orders of respondents No. 3 to 12 as ALM at Annexure A-5 may kindly be quashed and set-aside. (ii) That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to hold the review DPC by considering the case of the applicant for promotion as ALM from the due date with all consequential benefits. 2. The facts in brief are that petitioner was appointed as T- Mate on daily wage basis under H.P. State Electricity Board (for short, Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… the Board) Sub Division, Arki on 7.7.1982. The petitioner continued as such in Arki Division till 1995. The petitioner was regularized as T- Mate on completion of ten years service vide order dated 18.8.1995. The petitioner thereafter continued to serve as T-Mate under Arki Sub Division till the year 2001. The petitioner was transferred to Sub Division Kasauli under Division Parwanoo of the Board and he joined on 31.8.2001. The petitioner improved his qualification and passed Middle standard in the year 2002. 3. The next channel of promotion from the post of T-Mate is to the post of Assistant Lineman (ALM) and as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules the same is to be filled in by 100% promotion from amongst the T-Mates for which purpose a T-Mate having six years regular service is eligible for promotion to the post of ALM. The educational qualifications were relaxed by the Board vide clarification dated 4.12.2002. 4. In the final seniority list of T-Mates working in Parwanoo Division of the Board as it stood on 1.1.2002, the petitioner has been placed at Sr. No. 52 and the respondents No. 3 to 12 figures at Sr. No. 57, 59, 64, 66, 92, 94, 106, 109, 112 and 120 respectively. The respondents made certain promotions to the post of ALM on the basis of this seniority list, but petitioner has no grievance against such promotions as all persons who were promoted as ALMs were senior to the petitioner. The respondents issued another final seniority list of T-Mates as it stood on 1.1.2007. In this seniority list, the petitioner figures at Sr. No. 42 and respondents No. 3 to 12 at Sr. Nos. 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 70, 71, 79, 82, 85 and 90 respectively. In the said final …3… seniority list, the date of appointment of petitioner as T-Mate has been shown 31.8.2001. 5. After issuing final seniority list as on 1.1.2007, the respondents had convened DPC for promotion to the post of ALM in April 2007. The names of persons junior to petitioner were considered, whereas the petitioner was not considered in the DPC, hence respondents No. 3 to 12 were promoted to the post of ALM vide order dated 25.4.2007 on officiating basis. On having come to know about the illegality, the petitioner filed representation to respondents on 27.4.2007 against the promotions of junior persons to the post of ALM without considering the name of the petitioner. The respondents did not take any action on the representation of the petitioner. The respondents are again holding DPC for promotion to the post of ALM. In these circumstances, petition was filed with the prayers, noticed above. 6. The respondents No. 1, 2 have contested the petition by filing the reply. In the preliminary submissions, it has been stated that petitioner does not possess the minimum requisite qualifying service for promotion to the post of ALM. The petitioner had joined at Sub Division, Kasauli on 31.8.2001. He had given an undertaking that he will not claim the seniority of Arki Division. The petition is barred by limitation. On merits, it has been repeated that petitioner had joined at Kasauli on 31.8.2001 and he had given an undertaking that he will not claim the seniority of Arki Division. It has been stated that petitioner has requisite qualification after passing middle standard in the year 2002. It has been stated that deemed date for the purpose …4… of fixing seniority after deduction of three years (work-charge) service comes to 8.9.2000 (sic), hence the petitioner could not be considered for promotion. The cadre of line staff from T- Mate to ALM is maintained at Divisional level. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have prayed for dismissal of the petition. The private respondents have not filed the reply. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has taken the stand that as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules a T-Mate having six years regular service is eligible for promotion to the post of ALM. The respondents No. 1, 2 in their reply have denied that T-Mate having six years of service becomes eligible for promotion to the post of ALM. The respondents No. 1, 2 have not stated in their reply how much length of service is required by a T-Mate for promotion to the post of ALM. The respondents No. 1, 2 have also taken the plea that petitioner had given an undertaking that he would not claim seniority of Arki Division. The case of the petitioner is that even if his service of Arki Division is excluded, he came in Patwanoo Division on 31.8.2001. He was regularized in the year 1995 and when he came in Parwarnoo Division, he was already regular. It is not the case of respondents No. 1 and 2 that when petitioner came to Parwanoo Division at that time he was work- charge. On coming to Parwanoo Division on 31.8.2001, the petitioner was regular and, therefore, there was no question of deduction of his three years work-charge service for the purpose of seniority. The seniority of petitioner in Parwanoo Division as T-Mate would start from 31.8.2001. This apart in final seniority list of T-Mates (Regular) …5… in Parwanoo Division as on 1.1.2007, the petitioner has been shown at Sr. No. 42, whereas private respondents are shown at Sr. Nos. 45, 46, 48, 50, 70, 71, 79, 82, 85 and 90 in that seniority list. The petitioner is thus undoubtedly senior to the private respondents. 8. The promotions were to be made from T-Mates to ALMs on the basis of seniority. Admittedly, private respondents, who were juniors to petitioner were promoted from T-Mates to ALMs vide office order dated 24.4.2007 Annexure A-5. The respondents have not placed anything on record to show that after having shown the petitioner senior to private respondents in the seniority list of T-Mates of Parwanoo Division as existed on 1.1.2007 under what circumstances the private respondents were promoted ignoring the petitioner. The respondents No. 1, 2 in para 6(ii) of the reply have stated that since the petitioner had given an undertaking that he would not claim seniority of Arki Division, hence his case could not be considered in DPC held in the month of April 2007. The said undertaking has no relevance as petitioner has not been given benefit of service as T-Mate of Arki Division, his service in Parwanoo Division has been considered only from 31.8.2001. 9. The petitioner is senior to private respondents even after ignoring his seniority of Arki Division, which is clear from seniority list of T-Mates of Parwanoo Division as existed on 1.1.2007. The respondents No. 1, 2 without any justifiable cause have ignored the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of ALM when his juniors were promoted on 25.4.2007. The petitioner has made out a case for consideration of his case by respondents No. 1, 2 for …6… promotion from the date his juniors i.e. private respondents were promoted from the posts of T-Mates to ALMs with all consequential benefits, such as seniority, pay fixation and arrears as ALM. 10. No other point was urged. 11. The result of above discussion, the petition is allowed. The respondents No. 1 & 2 are directed to consider the case of petitioner for promotion from the post of T-Mate to ALM from the date his juniors i.e. private respondents were promoted to the post of ALMs with all consequential benefits such as seniority, pay fixation and arrears as ALM within a period of three months from the date of supply of a copy of this judgement by the petitioner to respondents No. 1 & 2. No costs. November 25, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.