BAL KRISHAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who retired as a Junior Engineer from the Punjab State Electricity Board (now known as Punjab State Power Corporation Limited) -respondent No. 2 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Board"), has challenged the order dated 15.09.2005 (Annexure P - 32), issued by the Deputy Secretary, Establishment, in concurrence with the Engineer -in -Chief, Distribution (West) Bathinda, as also the order dated 16.11.2009 (Annexure P -35) again actually issued by the Deputy Secretary, Establishment -II, Punjab State Electricity Board but stated to be "with the concurrence of the competent authority".

(2.) THE background and the facts leading up to the passing of the order, as given in the petition, are that the petitioner, who had joined the respondent -Board as an Assistant Lineman at Chandigarh on 19.03.1965, was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer (Grade -2) w.e.f 21.09.1987. In the meanwhile, upon re -organization of the State of Punjab into the States of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and the Union Territory of Chandigarh, on 01.11.1966, the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board is stated to have been dissolved on 02.05.1967, after which new Boards were constituted in the States of Punjab and Haryana, whereas in the Union Territory of Chandigarh and the then Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh, the functions of the erstwhile Board, came to be vested in the Electricity Departments of the Union Territories.

(3.) AFTER the petitioners' claim to be absorbed in the cadre of the Electricity Department of the Union Territory, Chandigarh, was dismissed, he eventually again sought to join duty at the Abohar Division on 19.09.2000, vide a joining report of the same date, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure P -8 with the petition but has been specifically denied to have been received by the respondents, in their written statement. Thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have made various representations to the Director, Personnel (T) of the respondent -Board at Patiala, on 09.10.2000, 20.12.2000, 26.12.2000 and 23.04.2001, which are admitted by the respondents, though it is refuted that there was any dereliction by the Superintending Engineer concerned, in not allowing the petitioner to join duty, as that was because the petitioner had not submitted an account rendering certificate from the U.T., Chandigarh. Therefore, without the certificate, he could not have been allowed to join duty, as per the respondents. It has been further stated that the petitioner should actually have approached the Superintending Engineer himself, rather than the Director, Personnel, thus bypassing the proper channel.