IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 3920/2008 (OA 1896/96) Date of Decision : May 14, 2009 Sh. Ramesh Kumar Vashist Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Through its Secretary, Vidhyut Bhawan, Shimla – 171 004 and others. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Ms. Sulochana Kaundal, Advocate vice Mr. O.P. Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) In the rejoinder the petitioner has placed on record the muster roll for the years 1987 upto 1996, from which it is evident that he discharged the duties of a Meter Ledger Clerk. This fact has not been refuted by the respondents at all. Hence the respondents’ plea that the petitioner was appointed as a Bill Distributor (Class-IV post) is evidently not correct. It is infact contrary to the record. The petitioner having continuously worked as such since 1987 was entitled for the benefits of settlement arrived between 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 respondents and the workmen/union. The petitioner had evidently completed five years of service and as such had to be regularised in terms of the settlement. The respondents, however, by taking plea that the petitioner was appointed as Bill Distributor wrongly regularised him as a Peon. Respondent No. 3 is stated to have been initially appointed as Meter Reader and not Bill Distributor as alleged by the petitioner. His appointment is in the year 1990 whereas the petitioner was appointed in March 1987. Be that as it may be, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner’s initial appointment evidently was that of Meter Ledger Clerk and he had to be regularised as such. It is also not the respondents’ case that as of 1996, the date when respondent No.3 was regularised/promoted as Clerk, the petitioner was otherwise ineligible or did not fulfill any of the eligibility conditions laid down in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. It is also not the respondents’ case that the next promotional post was a selection post and the criteria for selection was merit and not seniority. Infact Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, learned counsel for the respondent clarified that the next post was to be filled up purely on the basis of seniority being a promotional post. Under these circumstances the stand taken by the respondents herein is unsustainable in law. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s appointment as a Clerk from the date when respondent No. 3, junior 3 to the petitioner was promoted as a Clerk. The respondents shall also take a decision with regard to all consequential benefits to which the petitioner may be entitled, in accordance with law. Necessary decision shall be taken within a period of three months from today. Petition stands allowed with the aforesaid directions. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 14, 2009 (PK)