SHIVA SAHAY PRASAD Vs. JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 8. 09.01.2009Prayer in this writ application is for quashing the Resolution nos. 2261 and 2520 dated 20.05.2008 and 02.06.2008 (Annexures -13 and 14 respectively), whereby the respondent JSEB had accorded seniority to the respondent nos. 3 and 4 over the petitioners by placing them at Serial No. 5 and 106 respectively.

(2.) THE dispute raised in this writ application is in respect of the inter -se seniority of the petitioner vis -as -vis the respondent nos. 3 and 4. The petitioner and the respondent nos. 3 and 4, who were initially engaged to work as Assistant Executive Engineers in the Ex -cadre post, were subsequently absorbed in the service against the sanctioned posts. Upon such absorption, the BSEB under whom the petitioners and the respondent nos. 3 and 4 were originally employed, had published a seniority list on 14.9.1994. Aggrieved with the manner in which the seniority list was prepared, adversely affecting their interest, some of the Assistant Executive Engineers preferred a writ petition vide CWJC No. 3020 of 1995 (Ram Jivan Prasad and others Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and others). A Division Bench of the Patna High Court vide its order dated 22.7.1998 set aside the final gradation list, with the observation that the gradation list should be prepared by following the prescribed Rules.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners would submit that the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court as also by the learned Single Judge, are binding upon the respondent Jharkhand State Electricity Board in view of the fact that JSEB was also impleaded as a party respondent in the aforesaid writ petition and the LPA and neither the judgment passed by the Division Bench, nor of the learned Single Judge, has been modified as yet by the superior court, nor has any order of stay been granted by the Supreme Court. The decision of the Board by granting seniority to the private respondents 3 and 4 and making them senior to the petitioners, is, according to the learned counsel, directly against the judgment of this court. The respondent JSEB, in terms of the learned counsel, has over read the order of this court which is an act contemptuous in nature.