ISH KUMAR Vs. HARYANA SLATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the employees of the Haryana State Electricity Board (for short the Board) and have been working as Junior Engineer at Thermal Power Station, Panipat, in the State of Haryana. During the year 1974, a separate Thermal organisation was created and Thermal Plants were installed to meet the demand of electricity supply. As a result thereof, the petitioners were transferred to the Thermal Organisation on administrative exigencies from time to time during the years 1977 to 1980. The Board revised its policy with regard to recruitment, promotion and posting of employees in its Thermal Power Projects by changing the existing staffing pattern. The guidelines dated August 7, 1985 issued for implementing the policy are contained in letter Annexure P-1 appended with the petition. According to the revised policy decision, two separate cadres of the employees were created, i.e. Thermal cadre and the Field cadre, and the Junior Engineers who had rendered five years' service on operation and maintenance of Thermal Power Stations alone, were eligible for absorption in the Thermal Cadre. For this purpose, options were also to be obtained in writing and those who did not opt for absorption in the Thermal Cadre itself were to be shifted out of the Thermal Project, gradually in a phased manner. Ultimately, separate seniority lists of the Junior Engineers were to be maintained with separate channels of promotion for the Thermal and Field Organisations. In pursuance of the aforesaid decision, the petitioners were deemed to have opted for being absorbed in the Thermal Cadre. However, the Board issued transfer orders of petitioner Nos. 2 to 12, posting them outside the Thermal Cadre at Panipat, obviously in various offices borne on the Field Cadre. Aggrieved against this action, the petitioners have approached this Court for Issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing their transfer orders and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit them to continue in the Thermal Cadre for which cadre they have been treated to have opted.

(2.) In the written statement filed by the Board, it is stated that representations of the petitioners were scrutinised and found to be without merit. The policy decision of the Board to (ill up the vacancies created by the Staffing patlern consequent upon the decision of having a separate cadre of the Thermal Power Projects has been filed as Annexure R-l. It is further stated in the written statement that in view of the said policy and guidelines, the cases of the petitioners and other Junior Engineers were screened by the Chief Engineer, Thermal Power Project, Panipat, who after adjudging their suitability retained petitioner No.1 and asked for transfer cf others and consequently, the transfer orders were issued, ft is further stated that petitioner No.5 did not opt for Thermal Cadre. Thus, in nutshell, the action is sought to be justified on the ground that it is only after screening the service record of the petitioners working in the Thermal Plant and considering their academic and technical qualifications and experience etc. the Screening Committee recommended that they be transferred to the Field Cadre.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were shifted and posted in the Field Cadre without considering their representations and giving them an opportunity of being heard. The learned counsel in support of his submission placed reliance upon the decision in Shri S.P.Kapoor, Junior Engineer and others vs. The Haryana State Electricity Board,1987 4 SLR 654.