MANI RAM Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was engaged as a Beldar by the respondent -Board in the year 1968. He was promoted to the post of ˜T Mate on work charge basis on 26. 5.1970. He joined his duties on 1.6.1970. He was promoted from the post of ˜T Mate to the post of Assistant Lineman vide order dated 17.9.1979. He was posted at Electrical Sub -Division, Nalagarh under Electrical Circle, Solan. He was transferred from Electrical Division Nalagarh to Electrical Sub Division Subathu under Electrical Division, Arki. He joined his duties on 13.10.1992. He was further promoted to the post of Lineman on the basis of the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 27.5.1987. He submitted his joining report on 10.6.1987. His pay was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 480 -880 w.e.f. 10.6.1987. The petitioner was informed by respondent No. 3 on 21.5.1993 that he has been assigned seniority wrongly and accordingly he could not be promoted to the post of Lineman on the basis of recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee made on 27.5.1987. The promotion orders issued in favour of the petitioner on 28.5.1987 were withdrawn vide Annexure -A5 dated 15.10.1993. He filed an Original Application bearing No. 2174 of 1994 before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The learned Administrative Tribunal directed the petition to be treated as representation to the Secretary of the respondent -Board on 29.3.1994. The same was rejected by the Secretary vide Annexure A -9.

(2.) MR . R.S. Guatam, Advocate has strenuously argued that the petitioner has not been heard before the issuance of Annexure A -5 dated 15.10.1993. His further case is that the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Lineman by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 27.5.1987 strictly in conformity with Annexure A -8. He then contended that the amendment carried in the Rules notified on 17.3.1986 could not be given retrospective effect. In other words, his submission is that the rights which have accrued to the petitioner on the basis of Annexure A -8 could not be taken away by applying the corrigendum dated 1.9.1987 retrospectively.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.