Punjab-Haryana High Court
Swaran Singh And Others vs The Punjab State Electricity Board And ... on 3 July, 2014
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
Archana arora
CWP No. 14536 of 1991 1 2014.07.09 15:28
I am the author of this
document
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 14536 of 1991
Date of decision: July 3, 2014
Swaran Singh and others
....... Petitioners
Versus
The Punjab State Electricity Board and others
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present: Ms. Bindu Goel, Advocate,
for Mr. S.D.Sharma, Senior Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate,
for the respondents.
****
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
K. Kannan, J (oral).
1. The petitioners seek for consideration for promotion to the next higher post as Sub Station Attendant from the lower post which is feeder post as Telephonist in Punjab State Electricity Board. There was an attempt to merge the cadre of Telephonist with LDCs and this created a change in condition of service in so far as there was an additional requirement of having to pass qualifying examination for promotion as UDC which was not necessary if they were to be promoted from the original cadre as Telephonist to the Sub Station Attendant.
2. The petitioners admittedly were seniors in CWP No. 14536 of 1991 2 ranks to respondents 3 and 4. In a seniority list issued in the post of Telephonist, respondent Nos. 3 and 4had been shown as falling in serial Nos.57 and 59, while all the petitioners fell within the range between 44 to 56-A. Respondents 3 and 4 appeared to have filed independently civil suit challenging the order merging the post of Telephonist with LDC and also came by an interim direction of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla to be issued with the order of promotion on the basis of earlier rules in RSA No.479 of 1989, dated 15.05.1997. It appears that RSA filed by the Board was dismissed and the decision regarding the merger of posts was quashed. It is reported to have been confirmed upto the Supreme Court. Since the respondents 3 and 4 alone were the plaintiffs in the said suit, they had the benefit of promotion, while the petitioners who were seniors to them had not been promoted. The counsel for the petitioners would take me to the interim order of the High Court itself which stated that the respondents would be entitled to promotion on the basis of previous rules for promotion. The previous rules allowed for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness and so long as the petitioners were seniors to them and they had not been declared to be unfit, they were entitled to be considered for promotion at the same time when respondents 3 and 4 had been promoted.
3. The counsel for the PSEB would argue that the merger had taken 7 years later to the institution of the writ petition and therefore the petitioner's case should be dismissed as barred by laches. I reject this contention as untenable, for, in this case when PSEB was giving effect to the order of the High Court it could not CWP No. 14536 of 1991 3 have selectively picked up only the plaintiffs in the suit for promotion. After all the order of the High Court was to the effect that the promotions were to be given to respondent Nos 3 and 4 who were the plaintiffs on the basis of rule about promotion. Admittedly, the rule about promotion was on the basis of consideration of seniority of eligible candidates. The cause of action was not the date of merger only but for the petitioners the cause of action was the date when the PSEB applied the rule of promotion to the discrimination of the petitioners after the order was passed by the High Court on 20.12.1990. The writ petition was filed in the year 1991 and the writ petition was therefore well in time. The counsel would refer to the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari 2014 (1)SCT 303 and Union of India Vs. A. Durairaj 2011 AIR (SC) 1084 where delay and laches were considered. I do not find them to be applicable to this case in the light of how I applied the cause of action for the petitioners to be available from the day when rule of promotion was directed to be applied in terms of the decree that has been obtained by respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
4. The action of PSEB was arbitrary and discriminatory falling foul of Article 14 of the Constitution. There shall be a mandamus to treat the petitioners as having been promoted on the day when the vacancies fell or at any day prior to the date when the juniors were promoted whichever was earlier. All the monetary benefits shall be worked out correspondingly in consequence of this direction and shall be calculated and released to the petitioners CWP No. 14536 of 1991 4 within a period of 12 weeks with interest at 9% per annum.
5. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms within costs assessed at `10,000/-.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 3 , 2014 archana