SHARAD KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs. CHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the notification dated 24.06.2004 (Annexure P/5), which was issued by the first respondent/Board in exercise of its power under clause (c) of Section 79 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (for short 'the Supply Act') whereby the respondent/Board adopted the promotion policy of the State Government, as per the notification dated 06.09.2003 (Annexure P4).

(2.) The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners are that the petitioners are Senior Engineers in the respondent No. 1/Board. Theengineers of the Board are promoted as per the policy circulated by the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, on 30.06.1999. The policy dated 30.06.1999 (Annexure P/3) provided for reservation for the category of Scheduled Caste (for short 'the SC') and Scheduled Tribe (for short 'the ST') to the extent of 15% and 18% to Class II post, promotion from Class II to Class II post, and Class II to Class I post, however, there was no reservation in Class I category and the same was in accordance with merit cum seniority. The State Government, by notification dated 06.09.2003 (Annexure P/4) framed rules for reservation and promotion in the civil services for SC and ST category candidates as Chhattisgarh Civil Services Promotion Rules, 2003 (for short 'the Rules, 2003'). Rule 5 of the Rules, 2003 provides reservation on the basis of merit cum seniority for the purpose for promotion in Class I category to the extent of 15% for SC and 23% for ST candidates. The respondent/Board, by notification dated 24.06.2004 in purported exercise of powers under section 79(c) of the Supply Act, adopted the rules provided in the Rules, 2003. By this notification, it was also decided to relax the qualifying experience criteria for all cadres by two years as on 31.12.2003 as one time measure. It was also decided to obtain undertaking from all the concerned employee to the effect that the promotion will be subject to the final apportionment of the officers/employees between MPSEB and CSEB and they should be ready even for demotion if the situation so warranted. The erstwhileElectricity Board, vide order dated 17.03.1999 decided to give time bound promotion facility to its various engineers and other officers, taking into consideration the delay in promotion of engineers of different categories. According to this decision, all the Assistant Engineers (for short 'the AE') who had put 9 years of service, were also to be paid higher pay scale of Executive Engineer (for short 'the EE') and the EE who had put in 18 years of service, were also to be paid higher scale of Superintending Engineer (for short 'the SE') and were to be designated as Additional Superintending Engineer (for short 'the ASE'). It was further decided that the AEs who had put in 15 years of service including training period with the Board shall be promoted to the post of EE and those engineers who had put in 23 years of service including training, shall be promoted to the post of SE. As per the promotion policy dated 17.03.1999 (Annexure P/6), the petitioner No. 1, 2 and 5 were designated as ASE and they are entitled for promotion to the post of SE under the time bound promotion scheme. The petitioner No. 8 has already been promoted to the post of SE.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that under the notification dated 24.06.2004 (Annexure P/5), the respondent/Board was contemplating to promote Junior Officers belonging to SC and ST category from Class I to Class I higher category i.e. from the post of EE to SE. The engineers belonging to SC and ST categories, have already been benefited by the reservation policy of the Board at the time ofrecruitment and thereafter, at the time of promotion under time bound promotion scheme. The impugned notification dated 24.06.2004, being without authority of law, will create anomaly in the service conditions of the present petitioners.