Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vivek Lakhanpal & Others vs Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited & ... on 18 September, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
CWP No.18426 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.18426 of 2012
Date of decision: 18.09.2012
Vivek Lakhanpal & others ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited & another ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Dheeraj Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
As per the averments made, the petitioners were appointed as LDC/UDC by way of direct recruitment under Sports quota after fulfilling the requisite essential qualifications. According to the petitioners, they have achieved phenomenal success in their respective sports and games and ever since their appointments, they have been actively participating and attending various Inter-State Sports Events. They are playing under the banner of Haryana Power Utilities Sports Group and their contributions have brought laurels to the Haryana Power Utilities from time to time.
It is their further case that the respondent-Nigam framed a Policy dated 23.5.1973 for providing incentives to the sportsmen appointed under the sports quota and it was decided to exempt such sportsmen, who are members of the Board's team, from passing the departmental examination till such time they continue to be the members of their respective teams, with a further stipulation to allow them the increments including crossing of efficiency bar.
It is the further case of the petitioners that in spite of the fact CWP No.18426 of 2012 2 that they were entitled for grant of annual increment by considering them exempted from passing the departmental examination, such annual increments were not granted to them from time to time and ultimately, it was decided that the increments of the sportspersons may be restored with retrospective effect and the decision regarding waiving off the condition of passing the departmental examination, for promotion vide Annexure P-4. It was also decided by HVPNL in the meeting dated 10.10.2007 to continue with the benefits as per Circular dated 23.5.1973 and by giving benefit of ACP scales to some of the sportspersons who were working as UDC for more than 20 years.
According to the petitioners, since there is no comprehensive policy in place for governing promotions for the sportspersons and taking advantage of non-existence of such policy, some persons were promoted to the post of Sports Officer, one such promotion is under challenge in CWP No.3506 of 2011 filed on behalf of petitioner No.1 and petitioners No.5 and 7 have also filed CWP No.12821 & 12822 of 2005 for their promotion which are still pending.
By filing this petition, the petitioners have raised a grievance that instead of framing a comprehensive policy, the respondent-Nigam has issued an office order dated 25.6.2012 whereby a Sports policy has been issued laying criteria for promotion to the post of Sports Assistant/Sports Officer/Senior Sports Officer vide Annexure P-9 and the said policy has been made applicable prospectively resulting into washing of their earlier service for the promotion to the post of Sports Assistant, for which requirement of 10 years of service as LDC/UDC shall be now reckoned from the date of issuance of the said order. Further the present incumbents as LDC/UDC were required to exercise their option to come to the sports CWP No.18426 of 2012 3 cadre and the lien of such officials on the general cadre shall be terminated. Thus, a challenge has been laid to the said Policy on the ground that their past service in the general cadre is completely lost and vide impugned order Annexure P-9, the right of the petitioners being considered for promotion to the higher posts of Assistant/Deputy Superintendent/Superintendents/Under Secretary in the general cadre will be lost by losing their lien on their respective posts in the general cadre whereas earlier the sportspersons recruited as LDC/UDC under the sports quota, were a part of larger general cadre and also such persons were entitled for promotion to the post of Assistant/Deputy Superintendent/Superintendents/Under Secretary on completion of requisite numbers of years of service and after passing the departmental examination. Thus, according to the arguments, the impugned policy is a subtle device to dislodge the sportspersons like them from mainstream of general cadre. Since the petitioners have been put to the disadvantages position on both counts i.e. on the one hand they have been denied promotions under the general cadre for want of passing of the departmental examination and on the other hand, the sports cadre now constituted by way of the impugned order applies prospectively thereby rendering their entire past service as completely lost , the impugned policy is liable to be quashed.
At this stage, it may be noticed that petitioner No.1 has also filed CWP No.3506 of 2011 challenging promotion of one Sh. R.S. Dahiya and further seeking directions for framing of suitable policy/criteria and to consider for promotion of the petitioner on the basis of sports achievements. The said writ petition is still pending. It is the further case of petitioner No.1 that after framing the impugned policy dated 25.6.2012, CWP No.18426 of 2012 4 civil misc. application was moved in CWP No.3506 of 2011 for setting aside the said policy and the said application was withdrawn so as to challenge the impugned policy/circular by way of filing a fresh writ petition. It has been further stated in the writ petition that petitioner No.5 has filed CWP No.12822 of 2005 and petitioner No.7 has filed CWP No.12821 of 2005 wherein a prayer has been made for grant of promotion to the post of Assistant with effect from the original date of appointment instead of from the date of passing of departmental examination and the above writ petitions are still pending before this Court. A further specific averment has been made in the writ petition that the controversy in hand is totally distinct and the cause arising due to issuance of the policy which is sought to be quashed in the present petition.
At this stage, it may be noticed that this Court has also perused the record of CWP No.3506 of 2011. Prima facie, the petitioners have not come to the Court with their hands clean. In spite of the fact that petitioner No.1 has filed CWP No.3506 of 2011 seeking directions for framing a suitable policy/criteria for promotion of the petitioners on the basis of their sports achievements and the impugned policy dated 25.6.2012 has been framed in pursuance of the directions passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition and a copy of the said policy was also placed on record of the said writ petition, which is still pending, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition challenging the said impugned policy. Moreover, the averment made in para No.19 of the writ petition that application was moved for challenging the policy dated 25.6.2012 and the same was withdrawn to file a fresh writ petition, is absolutely against the record in the case. It is a matter of record that petitioner No.1 moved CM No.8276 of 2012 in CWP No.3506 of 2011 only for staying the operation of CWP No.18426 of 2012 5 said policy dated 25.6.2012 and no challenge was laid to the said policy in the said writ petition though the petitioner had an opportunity to challenge the same in the said writ petition. Moreover, while allowing withdrawal of CM No.8276 of 2012 in CWP No.3506 of 2011 vide order dated 28.8.2012, this Court had not granted any permission to the petitioner to challenge the impugned policy by way of separate writ petition. Thus, a false averment has been made that the petitioner had filed the civil misc. application for quashing of the aforesaid policy and the same was permitted to be withdrawn to challenge the said policy by way of fresh writ petition.
Not only this, even in the instant writ petition, the second prayer made on behalf of the petitioners reads thus:
"(ii) Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and promote the petitioners to the posts of Sports Assistant/Sports Officer/Senior Sports Officer by counting their past service from the date of their original appointments and for further directing the respondents to consider and promote the petitioners to the higher posts of Assistant/ Deputy Superintendent/ Superintendent in the General Cadre by applying the policy dated 23.5.1973 (Annexure P-3) issued by the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board thereby granting them exemption from passing the Departmental Examination in view of the fact that the petitioners are outstanding sportspersons and having been representing the sports teams of the erstwhile H.S.E.B./respondent-Nigam from time to time."
A perusal of the prayer made in the earlier writ petitions i.e. CWP No.18426 of 2012 6 CWP Nos.3506 of 2011, CWP No.12822 of 2005 and CWP No.12821 of 2005 would show that in pith and substance, the same relief has been claimed in the aforesaid writ petitions, as the substantive relief claimed by the petitioners is for consideration of their claim for promotion to the post of Assistant on the basis of their sports achievements and in view of the aforesaid fact alone, the instant writ petition is not maintainable on behalf of these petitioners.
At this stage, it may be further noticed that though there is no reference with regard to filing of any writ petition on behalf of petitioners No.2, 3, 4 and 6, however, it is relevant to notice that no factual data has been given with regard to the aforesaid petitioners and as per Annexure P- 1, petitioners No.2 and 4 are already working as Assistants nor it has been shown as to how the impugned policy is to the detriment of these petitioners. The writ petition is absolutely silent with regard to petitioner No.6 except his name in the memo of parties and place of posting as LDC, nothing has been mentioned in the entire writ petition. The writ petition is also totally silent as to how the impugned policy is liable to be quashed at their instance.
In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed for the reasons as discussed above.
Dismissed.
September 18, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
ps JUDGE
CWP No.18426 of 2012 7