BALBIR CHAND SINGLA Vs. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are working as Chief Draftsman and Circle Head Draftsmen in the Haryana State Electricity Board, impugned the provisions of Rules notified by the Board under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 , vide notification dated February 19,1988. Their grievance in a nutshell is that according to the Rules, which were in force at the time of the formation of the Haryana State Electricity Board on May 2, 1967, the Drawing Establishment had a quota to the extent of 4% for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. According to the petitioners, this constituted a condition of service, which was duly protected by the Board vide its orders Nos. 18 and 19 dated May 10,1967. The petitioners aver that by the impugned notification, the members of the Drawing Establishment, like the petitioners, have been totally excluded from the category of Engineering subordinates and as a result they have been rendered ineligible for the post of Assistant Engineer. The notification is challenged primarily on the ground that it is violative of the orders datedMay 10,1967, issued by the Board.

(2.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been inter alia averred that in pursuance to the representations received from various officials of the Board, the matter was referred to a committee. On the recommendation of the committee, the officials belonging to the Drawing Establishment have been provided a separate channel of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). Accordingly, it is maintained that the Board had not acted in violation of the orders dated May 10, 1967. It has also been pointed out that the promotion policy had been originally framed more than two decades back when technically qualified persons were not available. With the advancement in technology and availability of qualified personnel, the Board had considered it expedient that the post of Assistant Engineer in the civil and mechanical cadres be filled up by promotion from amongst the technically qualified persons. It is on this premises that the impugned amendment has been justified.

(3.) I have heard Mr. K.K. Jagia, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. M.S. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents.