NATHU RAM SHARMA Vs. BIKRAM SINGH MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE aforesaid cases are being disposed of by a common judgment. LPA Nos.45, 50, 52, 68, 69, 70 and 109 of 2009 were also heard along with these cases. Though the points involved are similar, those cases are being disposed of by a separate judgment since different Departments are involved and the Rules are different. These two cases relate to the HPPWD. CWP No.1358 of 2008 is directed against the order of the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal dated 23.5.2008 passed in OA No.1975 of 1995. LPA No.65 of 2009 is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP(T) No.2275 of 2008. This petition arose out of the Original Application No.756 of 1994 filed by the original applicants before the Administrative Tribunal which was transferred to this Court after the abolition of the Tribunal.

(2.) IN both the cases the original petitioners were Graduate Engineers and the main reliefs prayed by them were that the judgment delivered by the Tribunal in TA Nos.89 and 91 of 1981 dated 7.6.1991 in Rattan Singh and others vs. State of H.P. and others may be recalled and re -considered. They also challenged the seniority list issued by the Respondent -State whereby private respondents who were non -graduate diploma holder Engineers and had passed the AMIE degree during service thus becoming graduate engineers have been granted seniority by counting their service prior to their obtaining the AMIE qualification. O.A. No.1975 of 1995 titled Rajesh Bhardwaj and others vs. State of H.P. and others was disposed of by the Tribunal on merits and the Tribunal by a reasoned judgment followed its earlier judgment and rejected the O.A. As far as CWP(T) No.2275 of 2008 is concerned the same was disposed of by a short order which reads as follows: It is not disputed by the parties that the present list is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court in Shailendra Dania and others versus S.P. Dubey and others, (2007) 5 SCC 535. Accordingly, respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to do the needful within a period of eight weeks from today. In the light of above, the petition is disposed of. No costs. - One of the main grievances of the appellants in LPA No.65 of 2009 is that the learned Single Judge did not go into the merits of the case and disposed of the petition only on the statement made on behalf of the petitioner and respondents 1&2 and decided the rights of the private respondents without hearing them and without even deciding the case on merits. We are of the considered view that this judgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set -aside on the short ground that when private respondents were involved the case could not have been disposed of only on the basis of the statement made by the appearing parties.

(3.) THE amended Rule reads as follows: (iii)From amongst the Graduate Junior Engineers (University Graduate or AMIE) having 3 years regular or ad hoc service rendered up to 31.12.83 or both as such...10%. Note: For purpose of promotion 3 years regular or ad hoc service rendered up to 31.12.83 shall be counted from the date of appointment of the Graduate Junior Engineer and from the date of passing sections A&B of AMIE Examination by in -service Junior Engineer, respectively. -Two writ petitions were filed in this Court being CWP Nos.298/84 and 90/87 challenging the foot note added to the Rules of 1984. These writ petitions were transferred to the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal and disposed of vide judgment dated June 7, 1991.