IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8443 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.12.2011 Vishav Mohan and another ...Petitioners versus Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, through its Secretary. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate, and Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Amit Kohar, Advocate, for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioners challenge the order passed by the Secretary, Punjab State Electricity Board (for short, PSEB) on 14.09.1988 (Annexure P-9) appointing them as Linemen in the pay scale of Rs.450-800 with effect from the date when the order was issued. The petitioners' grievance was that they had been working as a Diesel Engine Mechanics since 1981 on a pre- revised scale of 140-305 which was revised to a scale of 570-1080. In an exercise that required of the respondents to adjust the employees, who were Civil Writ Petition No.8443 of 1988 (O&M) - 2 - perceived to have been rendered surplus when the Diesel Engine Mechanics post was abolished, the petitioners were admittedly entitled to be considered for such absorption. The petitioners grievance was, persons, who had been even juniors to the petitioners in seniority list at serial Nos.16 and 19, against their own respective seniority at serial Nos.6 and 12 had been absorbed, while the petitioners had been left out. The petitioners would contend that the decision to appoint them as Linemen in the scale of 450-800 which was even lower than the post that they already held and in scale that was lower than what they already held, was grossly unjust. They would also contend that they had the requisite qualification and experience for holding the post as Diesel Engine Mechanics as per the rules and the impugned order that provided for a posting effective only from the date of their appointment had virtually effaced their entire period of past service. 2. In justification of the respondents' action, the learned senior counsel for the respondents would contend that when the Diesel Engine Mechanic's post was abolished, the respondent Board had set through a process of absorption that required the eligible candidates that had the requisite qualification to be interviewed for their suitability in various posts. At the relevant time, 25 persons were given absorption after conducting interviews which were notified to take place in March 1985 for proper assessment. The respondents claimed that there was also a further press note issued Civil Writ Petition No.8443 of 1988 (O&M) - 3 - on 03.07.1985 and circulated to all concerned that Diesel Engine Drivers and Diesel Engine Mechanics who could not give the particulars of eligibility for consideration should intimate their whereabouts and give the necessary particulars. According to the respondents, the petitioners were absent from duty without prior intimation. The first petitioner was reported to have been absent from 15.07.1980 to 10.08.1986 while the 2nd petitioner was absent from 05.11.1982 to 26.02.1986. Since the petitioners had not presented themselves for interview after giving the necessary particulars in the manner required through prior notices, the selection was completed although the petitioners did not avail the occasion for consideration. Their matter was required to be examined afresh only when a representation had been given subsequently on 20.03.1986 when the order of absorption had been made even earlier on 25.11.1985. It is also contended that during the interregnum from 25.11.1985 to 23.06.1986, the respondents had actually issued a notice and had taken action for their unauthorized absence that resulted in handing down a minor punishment of withdrawal of 3 increments for the 1st petitioner with cumulative effect and withdrawal of 1 increment with cumulative effect for the 2nd petitioner. To a query for the justification for not taking the petitioners for consideration for the post as Foreman, while allowing the post to his juniors, who had been placed at 16 and 19, the contention of the Board was that there were only 25 posts available Civil Writ Petition No.8443 of 1988 (O&M) - 4 - and when the petitioner had not responded to the notices, they could only appoint only to such number of posts who had presented themselves as eligible and who could be interviewed. Since there were no post available, in the manner of absorption, they could be absorbed only in the post as Lineman and they were given the scales that the post carried. 3. This contention of the learned counsel for the State that there were no vacancies is shown to be incorrect on the documents brought to Court through orders placing the petitioners in other posts soon after their resumption into service and after the decision had been taken pursuant to the disciplinary action for their unauthorized absence. It bears out that on 11.08.1986, the first petitioner had been given the posting in the circle of SDO Bassian on his own scale against the vacant post of Foreman and as regards the second petitioner, a posting had been given in the vacant post of JE-I in the Sub Station at Talwara. The postings which the respondents have made to the petitioners clearly show that their contention that there was no post available and hence, they were readjusted in the post as Linesman in the scale given to them is not correct. Again, there was simply no justification for passing an order that was to take effect from the date when the order was passed, which had the effect of effacement of all the previous service. For their unauthorized absence, a punishment had already been meted out to them by denying some increments and there could Civil Writ Petition No.8443 of 1988 (O&M) - 5 - be no further punishment. If the posting is sought to be justified only on the ground that such post alone was available, then we have already seen that such a contention was also not true. The impugned order of giving to the petitioners the post of Lineman in a lower scale betrays the untenability of the action of the respondents and is required to be quashed. 4. The writ petition is allowed and the petitioners must be taken as adjusted in the post as Foreman on the day when they were appointed as Linemen with all consequential benefits. It is also directed that they shall also be treated as having been continuous in service from the date when they were first appointed. The calculation of the monetary benefits shall be done within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the amount shall be released with interest at 6% from the respective dates when the amounts fell due. 5. I am informed that the petitioners have since been superannuated and the above directions will have a bearing not only to the past entitlement but in the manner of reckoning of their retiral dues. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 01.12.2011 sanjeev