IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2051 of 2008. Decided on: 3.8.2009. __________________________________________________ Shri Hazara Singh … Petitioner. Versus H.P. State Electricity Board. … Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. K.C. Sankhyan, Advocate vice Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Adv. For the respondent : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Electrical Foreman on 1.6.1971. He became eligible for promotion to the higher post on 1.6.1986. The Board invited options for considering the claim of the officials on out-of-turn basis for promotion to one post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), Sub Division, Pangi vide letter dated 23.4.1986 within a period of one week. The time was, however, extended and it was decided by the Board to consider the options received till 20.5.1986. The case of the petitioner was not considered by the respondent-Board. He approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition which was transferred to the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal and assigned T.A. No. 260/1986. The 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 same was disposed of by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 19.7.1991. The learned Tribunal directed the original application filed by the petitioner to be treated as representation by the Chairman, H.P. State Electricity Board. The petitioner was afforded personal hearing by the Member (Administration) on 1.11.1991. The representation made by the petitioner was partially allowed vide office order dated 5.3.1992. However, it appears from the records that vide letter dated 8.5.1992 from the Secretary of the Board that the representation made by the petitioner stood rejected. The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 8.5.1992 (Annexure A-9). The petitioner has sought direction to the respondent to consider his case for out-of-turn ad hoc promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) at Pangi Sub Division, District Chamba. The present petition has been filed by him after his superannuation. Mr. K.C. Sankhyan has vehemently argued that Annexure A-9 dated 8.5.1992 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He then contended that his client was required to be considered on the basis of his option and seniority from due date when Shri K.C. Puri a junior to him was promoted. Ms. Anjula Khajuria has supported the order dated 8.5.1992. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. 3 The Board had decided to fill up the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), Sub Division at Pangi by inviting options vide letter dated 23.4.1986. The petitioner has exercised his option on 12.5.1986. The same was forwarded by the Executive Engineer on 15.5.1986. The Chief Engineer (Operation) South, Shimla forwarded the option on 28.5.1986. The case of the respondent- Board is that it has decided initially to give one week’s time for exercising the option. However, the period was extended. It has decided as per contents of the reply to consider the options exercised by the candidates up to 20.5.1986. The petitioner’s application has been received by the Board on 29/30.5.1986. As far as Mr. K.C. Puri who was arrayed as respondent No.2 in T.A. No. 260/1986 is concerned, he has submitted his option vide letter dated 30.4.1986. He became eligible on 1.1.1985. Mr. K.C. Puri was given out-of-turn ad hoc promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on 11.6.1986. The petitioner has assailed his promotion in the year 1986 by way of T.A. No. 260/1986. It was decided in 1991. The learned Tribunal had directed to treat the application, as noticed above, as representation to the Chairman of the Board on 19.7.1991. The representation was decided as per Annexure A-7 on 5.3.1992. He has been held entitled to monetary benefits for the period with effect from 20.7.1988 to 31.12.1988. He has been heard before passing of office order dated 5.3.1992. There is another document on record i.e. Annexure A-9 dated 8.5.1992. A perusal of the contents of this document reveals that the representation made by the petitioner stood rejected. It is not 4 understandable how this letter dated 8.5.1992 could be issued once the representation of the petitioner stood decided on 5.3.1992 by allowing him 20% of his basic pay as acting allowance. This communication dated 8.5.1992 Annexure A-9 in these circumstances was superfluous. The petitioner was required to exercise his option within the period prescribed. The letter whereby options were called is dated 23.4.1986. The petitioner, according to his own admission, came to know about this letter on 9.5.1986. His option has reached the Board on 29/30.5.1986. In these circumstances, there is no illegality in the action of the respondent whereby the petitioner has been ignored and one Shri K.C. Puri was promoted on ad hoc basis as Assistant Engineer (Electrical). Moreover, the petitioner has neither assailed the promotion of Shri K.C. Puri nor he has added him as party. Shri K.C. Puri was a necessary party. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits granted to him as per Annexure A-8 dated 16.3.1992. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. August 3, 2009. (cr)