VISHAN DASS BHUTANI Vs. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD:

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - The petitioner was appointed as a temporary Civil Overseer (S.O.) on 3rd Aug., 1964 by the then Superintending Engineer Transmission, Construction Circle No. 2, Punjab State Electricity Board, Hisar. This temporary appointment was approved by the Chief Engineer vide letter dated 12.10.1964 with effect from 6.8.1964. A copy of letter has been attached as annexure P-2 to the writ petition. In this letter, it has been mentioned that the petitioner may be instructed to apply to the Subordinate Staff Selection Committee of the Punjab State Electricity Board for selection after obtaining prescribed form from the Secretary. Subsequently, the petitioner was also selected by the Subordinate Staff Selection Committee and he was appointed as S.O. on regular basis vide order dated 9.7.1965 (Annexure R-2 with the written statement). The order reads as under:-

(2.) In the year 1979, one Shri Varinder Singh Rawat who had earlier been appointed as a Line Superintendent on ad hoc basis, was regularised in service and his entire ad hoc service was counted towards seniority. The petitioner also submitted his claim that since he had been appointed on officiating temporary basis as S.O. on 6.8.1964 his temporary service should also be counted towards seniority. This was not acceded to by the respondents which led the petitioner to file the present writ petition.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner primarily argued that the service rendered by the petitioner on officiating temporary basis from 6.8.1964 is on a much better footing than ad hoc service which was rendered by Shri Varinder Singh Rawat and if his service could be counted for purposes of seniority, there was no reason to deny the same benefit to the petitioner. He also submitted that the petitioner's temporary appointment had been approved by the Chief Engineer and if there was any procedure required for appointment, i.e., that there should be a selection by the Staff Selection Committee, even that procedure had also been undergone and the petitioner was duly selected and according to the learned counsel, in this eventuality, the petitioner's appointment should date back to his original officiating temporary appointment.