BHARAT DARSHAN Vs. H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is directed against order dated May 18, 2005, passed by the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Shimla, whereby respondent - Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereafter referred to as 'the Board') has been directed to reckon the seniority of respondent No. 2 from the year 1987 and that of respondent No. 3 from the year 1988, as approved by the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereafter referred to as 'the DPC') in its meeting held in 1994.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that respondents 2 and 3 had been working as Junior Engineers in the Board since 1965. During the course of their service, they acquired AMIE qualification. Accordingly they were promoted as Assistant Engineers on adhoc basis in 1987 and 1988 respectively against the quota meant for Junior Engineers with AMIE qualification. It is not in dispute that for the category of Junior Engineers with AMIE qualification, quota prescribed was 6% under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1983. Vide order dated October 18, 1994, on the recommendation of the DPC, respondents 2 and 3 were promoted as Assistant Engineers with effect from 18.10.1994. Respondents 2 and 3 being aggrieved of their promotion with effect from 18.10.1994 made representation to the Board, submitting therein that the last regular promotion from the quota of Junior Engineers of AMIE category was made during 1985, although direct recruitments were made during 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1989. Further according to respondents 2 and 3, adequate number of posts of Assistant Engineers as per quota prescribed for AMIE Junior Engineers were available from 1985 onwards, but regular promotions were made in the year 1994. They further submitted that there are instructions that if DPC is not held at regular intervals and is held subsequently after a number of years, then the DPC is required to take into account the number of vacancies becoming available during each of the preceding year(s), considering eligible persons becoming eligible against the vacancies of such year(s). They thus submitted that if the seniority is reckoned with effect from October 18, 1994, they would be relegated below the direct recruits of 1989, which would be most unjust and unreasonable. They accordingly prayed that their claim for regular promotion to the posts of Assistant Engineer(s) from the due date(s) when the vacancy became available, be considered and they be also given all consequential benefits including benefit of seniority from the due date(s). Respondent Board did not take any action on the representation of respondents, which led to the filing of Original Application before the H.P. Administrative Tribunal, Shimla and by the impugned order, Board has been directed to reckon the seniority of respondents 2 and 3 with effect from 1987 and 1988 respectively.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that respondents 2 and 3 were promoted in the year 1987 and 1988 respectively only on adhoc basis and while making promotions, it was made clear that adhoc promotions will not confer any right of seniority to the post of Assistant Engineer on them. Thus according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 having accepted adhoc promotions, are estopped to challenge the action of the Board in not giving them seniority from the date(s) they were promoted on adhoc basis. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to Instructions dated 2.8.1995 wherein it is provided that seniority of a government servant shall be assigned from the date of regular appointment/ promotion in the grade concerned and not from the date of adhoc appointment/ promotion. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, said Instructions are also applicable to the Board and thus no relief could have been granted to respondents 2 and 3.