P S CHAUHAN Vs. CHAIRMAN GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner, a Superintending Engineer of the Gujarat Electricity Board, filed this writ petition before this court and prayed therein for the direction to the respondents to promote him to the grade of Superintending Engineer with effect from 1st August, 1972.

(2.) The petitioner has been given the promotion in the grade of Superintending Engineer from 1st January, 1979 under the order dated 18th December, 1979. It is not in dispute that under the order annexure 'C' dated 27th October, 1976, Sr. Engineers also upto the level of Superintending Engineer (inclusive) were entitled for the benefit of nine years rule with effect from 1- 8-1972. The petitioner against the order dated 18th December, 1979 made a representation and claimed for the benefit of nine years from 1st August, 1972, but his representation was dismissed under the order dated 19th August, 1983. No reason whatsoever has been given why the petitioner has been given the benefit of nine years rule with effect from 1-1-1979 when he was eligible from 1-8-1972. It is true that the benefit of nine years rule is not automatic, and the service of the officer concerned should not be adverse. The person should be otherwise fit for promotion on the basis of overall performance as per normal rules of the Board.

(3.) Now the adversities which are there in service record of the petitioner are to be briefly referred. Under the communication dated 2nd June, 1979, the petitioner was communicated with the adverse remark for the. years 1971-72 to 1974-75 and 1977-78. Another adversity in the service record'of the petitioner is a minor penalty which has been given to him with regard to an accident to TG Unit at Kandla on 28th January, 1973. The authority has not considered whether the adverse remarks which have been communicated to the petitioner for the years 1971-72 to 1974-75 and 1977-78 should have been considered due to the late communication thereof and secondly where any minor penalty given to him for the alleged incident of the date after 1-8-1972 could have been taken into consideration to deny him the benefit of nine years rule from 1st August, 1972. It is also not understandable how the date has been chosen 1-1-1979. This has not been done and by passing non speaking order the claim of the petitioner for benefit of nine years rule from 1-8-1972 has been rejected. Apart from this, the matter could have been considered whether merely on these uncommunicated adverse remarks as well as the minor penalty, the petitioner could have been deprived of the benefit of nine years rule. On 1-8-1972, the petitioner was not communicated with the adverse remarks.