Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Coram: Hon Ble Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik vs Union Of India Through Secretary To ... on 6 April, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
(Reserved on 28.03.2016)
O.A No.484/CH/2013 Date of decision- 06.04.2016
CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER (A)
M.P. Singh Wasal,
aged 52 years
son of Late Sh. Kuldeep Singh
presently working as Superintending Engineer,
Electricity Operation Circle,
U.T,
Chandigarh.
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE : Sh. H.S. Sethi, Advocate alongwith Sh. D.R. Sharma,
Advocate.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
2. Union Territory, Chandigarh through its Administrator, Chandigarh Administration Governor House, U.T, Chandigarh.
3. The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Union Territory Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
4. Union Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Ram Lal Gupta, counsel for respondent no. 1.
Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Sr. Advocate along with Sh. Aseem Rai, counsel for respondent no. 2 & 3.
Sh. B.B. Sharma, counsel for respondent no. 4.
ORDER
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J):-
The applicant is aggrieved against the order dated 21.03.2012 whereby his representation for considering his case for regular promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, U.T, Chandigarh as per PSEB Regulations, 1965 has been rejected. He further seeks issuance of a direction to the respondent to consider his case for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (Engineering Department), U.T. Chandigarh from the date when he became eligible therefor and the regular post was available and also considering the fact that he has been holding the additional charge of the post of Superintending Engineering w.e.f. 01.11.2010 itself, being fully eligible in terms of the PSEB Service of Engineers (Electrical) Regulations of 1965, as amended by the Punjab State Electricity Board from time to time as applicable to the U.T., Chandigarh Administration and to grant all the consequential benefits arising thereof.
2. The facts in brief, which led to the filing of the present O.A, are that M.P. Wasal, applicant herein, initially joined the CPWD on 09.02.1981 being Diploma Holder and served up to 1987. In the year 1985, he had qualified both Part A and Part B of AMIE. Then, he got selected as Inspector in Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking and worked there as such from 1987 to 1991. Thereafter, he was selected by the UPSC as Assistant Engineer (Class II) (Electricity Wing) in Chandigarh Administration on 30.09.1991. Afterward, he was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer (Class I) w.e.f. 05.08.1996 and Executive Engineer (Class-I) w.e.f. 27.12.2002 in terms of the provision contained in Punjab State Electricity Board, Service of Engineers (Electrical), (Chandigarh Amendment) Regulations, 1985 as notified by the Chandigarh Administration vide notification dated 16.10.1985. He has been holding the additional charge of post of Superintending Engineer (Electricity) since 01.10.2010. He was regularly promoted as such w.e.f. 29.09.2011 in terms of the decision rendered in O.A No. 769/CH/2010 and since then he is holding the charge of SE (EO), U.T, Chandigarh.
3. By means of the present O.A, the applicant has raised a solitary grievance that being Superintending Engineer, working in the Engineering Department of the U.T, Chandigarh, he has become eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, Engineering Department, U.T, Chandigarh, being fully eligible in terms of the Punjab State Electricity Board, Service of Engineers (Electrical) Regulations 1965 (in short PSEB-Regulation, 1965) as amended time to time. When the applicant made a representation to the competent authority on 13.02.2012 in this regard but the same was ultimately rejected by the authority by passing non-speaking and cryptic order dated 21.03.2012. Hence, the present O.A.
4. The respondents have filed written statement wherein they largely do not dispute the factual accuracy of the matter. It is submitted that the applicant joined the Chandigarh Administration as Assistant Engineer in the Electricity Wing of the Engineering Department, U.T, Chandigarh in the year 1991. He got promotion under the PSEB Service of Engineering (Electrical) (Chandigarh Amendment) Regulation, 1985 which are applicable to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineer/Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineering in the Electricity Wing of the Engineering Department, U.T, Chandigarh. However, they submit that claim of the applicant for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, Engineering Department, U.T, Chandigarh cannot be acceded because that post is to be filled up in terms of the rules known as Punjab Service of Engineers (Civil Wing), Department of Public Works (B&R Branch) Group A Service Rules, 2005 read with first amendment Rules i.e Punjab Water Supply and Sanitation (Engineering Wing) Group A Service Rules, 2007.
5. It is submitted that since, the post of SE (EO) which the applicant is holding is not the feeder cadre post for the post of Chief Engineer under above rule formulation, his request cannot be allowed and has rightly been rejected. It is submitted that his service conditions are governed by different set of rules and regulations called PSEB Service of Engineers (Electrical) Recruitment Regulation 1965 as amended from time to time, which have been made applicable to the employees of the Electricity wing, U.T, Chandigarh, therefore, the present O.A may be dismissed being devoid of merits. It is also submitted that since the applicant is working as SE (Electricity) which is not the part of B&R/Public Health/Electrical wings of Engineering Department, U.T, Chandigarh, he is not entitled for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, U.T, Chandigarh as he does not have necessary experience in the relevant field of Civil/Public Health/Electrical Engineering and most of the projects are carried out/executed under the supervision of Civil/Public Health/Electrical Engineering whereas the applicant belongs to Electricity Operation wing which has its own set up and regulated by the Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission/Electricity Act 2003. It also further clarified that the respondents have framed the Draft Recruitment Rules of the post of Chief Engineer in the B&R/Public Health/Electrical Wings of the Engineering Department, U.T, Chandigarh which has been forwarded to the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi dated 03.05.2011 for conveying their approval. Even under the Draft Rules SE(EO) is not entitled for promote to the post of SE in the Engineering Wing of Chandigarh Administration, thus, the respondents have rightly rejected his representation dated 13.02.2012 which is against the rule formulation.
6. It is also submitted that merely that at one of point of time a person from Electricity Wing has been appointed as Chief Engineer does not give the applicant a right to claim appointment to said post. Being governed under PSEB Regulations 1965 and being working in an independent establishment of Engineering Department, Chandigarh Administration, the applicant cannot lay his claim for consideration for the post of Chief Engineer which is governed by separate set of Rules. The respondents have also clarified with regard to the case of K.K. Jerath that though he was having degree in Electrical Engineering, but he was working as SE (Electrical) which is part and partial of B & R Branch of Engineering Department, thus, the applicant cannot be allowed to say that his claim deserves acceptance.
7. We have heard Sh. H.S. Sethi, Advocate along with Sh. D.R. Sharma, counsel for the applicant, Sh. Ram Lal Gupta, counsel for respondent no. 1, Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Sr. Advocate along with Sh. Aseem Rai, counsel for respondents no. 2 & 3 and Sh. B.B.Sharma, counsel for respondent no. 4.
8. Sh. H.S. Sethi, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that impugned order is non-speaking and cryptic, thus, same is liable to be set aside. To elaborate his arguments, he submitted that impugned order does not indicate the reasons as to what weighed in the mind of the concerned authority, who has rejected his claim for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, under PSEB Regulation 1965. He then submitted that even the authority who has passed the impugned order, has no power to decide his pending representation, as in case of Group A post only the Government of India is competent authority to take a view whereas the present order has been passed by the Chandigarh Administration which they cannot, thus, impugned order is invalid. With regard to first contention that order is without jurisdiction, he placed reliance upon the order passed by this court in earlier round of litigation i.e. OA NO. 769/CH/2010 where this court has held that it is only Central Government which is competent to frame the rules qua Class-I post.
9. Mr. Sethi, learned counsel for the applicant also argued that post of Chief Engineer, Engineering Department, U.T, Chandigarh is a single post and all the SEs working with the Chandigarh Administration in Engineering Department have a right for consideration for promotion to the said post in terms of their respective rules and the respondents cannot exclude the SE (Electricity) from consideration on the pretext that post is to be manned by a person from particular wings only as mentioned in the PSEB Rules, 2005 as amended in 2007. He also submitted that since the post of Chief Engineer is a post of Engineering department, U.T, Chandigarh, all SEs, who are eligible in any of the wing, have a right for consideration and it cannot that said post is to be filled up from a person working only under B&R/Public Health/Electrical Wings of the Engineering Department, U.T, Chandigarh. To support his argument, he placed reliance upon the order passed by this court in O.A No. 639/CH/1990 decided on 06.05.1991 titled K.K. Jerath, SE(Electrical) Vs. U.O.I & Ors. He submitted that once a person having degree in Electrical Engineering can be considered for promotion to the post of SE then a person, like applicant, who is having same qualification though working under Electricity Wing cannot be deprive of his right of consideration for promotion to the above said post.
10. Per contra, Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Sr. Advocate for Chandigarh Administration vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and argued that the applicant is misleading this court by twisting the facts. To substantiate his arguments, he submitted that the post of Chief Engineer, Engineering Department, U.T, Chandigarh is governed by Punjab Service of Engineers Class-I, P.W.D. (Building and Roads Branch) Rules, 1960 which were re-appealed vide notification dated 14.10.2005 notifying the rules know as Punjab Service of Engineers (Civil Wing), Department of Public Works ( B & R Branch) Group A service Rules, 2005 and subsequent to that another notification issued by the Punjab Government on 20.06.2007 notifying the rules known as Punjab Water Supply and Sanitation (Engineering Wing) Group A Service Rules, 2007. As per the notification dated 13.06.1992 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs where it is held that service condition which are applicable to the State of Punjab will be ipso-facto applicable to the persons working under the Chandigarh Administration on the same post, thus, in terms of the Rules of 2005 and 2007, the post of Chief Engineer is to be filled up from amongst the persons who are eligible under those rules. He further submitted that service conditions of the applicant is strictly governed by the PSEB Regulations, 1985 as notified in the year 1985, by the Chandigarh Administration and being independent department, and the applicant being working on the post of SE (Electricity Wing), cannot lay his claim for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer in the Department of Engineering, U.T, Chandigarh. With regard to the discrimination as alleged by the applicant , he submitted that merely because at one point of time, a person from Electrical side has been appointed as Chief Engineer, cannot give a right to the applicant to seek direction from this court to the Chandigarh Administration, contrary to the Rules and even this court cannot direct the government to perpetuate a mistake. He then submitted that even though it is specifically denied that Chandigarh Administration is not having rule formulation qua post of Chief Engineer, yet the respondents have already framed the draft rules which are pending for approval with competent authority and as per draft rules, the post manned by the applicant does not fall in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer. Lastly, he argued that Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission has already sent the proposal for creating the post of Chief Engineer under 1965 regulations and the persons working in that wing, as governed under 1965 regulations, will be considered against that post and not the other persons who are working in other wings, therefore, he prayed that present O.A may be dismissed being devoid of merit.
11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and have gone through the pleadings minutely with the able assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
12. The facts are not largely in dispute and the entire controversy revolves around interpretation of the statutes and applicability of the relevant rules for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer in the U.T. Chandigarh. The applicant had earlier filed an O.A. No. 1094-CH-2012 for ante dating his promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer to 1.11.2010 when post became vacant instead of from 29.9.2011 which was dismissed by a Bench of this Tribunal on 13.03.2014 in view of the fact that similar controversy had been put to rest by Jurisdictional High Court in CWP No. 17079-CAT-2013 titled Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Others Vs. Tarlochan Singh and Ors. decided on 05.03.2014 wherein it was held that a person cannot claim promotion from the date the vacancy was available.
The pleadings would make it more than clear that the applicant was selected & appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electricity) in Chandigarh Engineering Department on 30.09.1991. He was promoted as AEE w.e.f. 05.08.1996 and Executive Engineer w.e.f. 27.12.2002 in terms of provisions contained in PSEB Service of Engineers (Electrical) Regulations, 1965, as amended from time to time and stands promoted as Superintending Engineer (Electricity) w.e.f. 29.09.2011. The applicant, thus, belongs to Electricity Wing and has no concern with the B&R Wing.
13. The Union Territory of Chandigarh was constituted on 1.11.1966 under the provision of State Organization Act. By means of a notification dated 1.11.1966 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, in exercise of its power conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh, was authorized to exercise to make the power rules in regard to the method of recruitment to the Central Civil Services under its administrative control in connection with the affairs of the Union Territory of Chandigarh. In the year 1992, another notification dated 13.1.1992 was issued under Article 309 of the Constitution of India whereby the President of India framed conditions of service of Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees Rules, 1992. It took effect from 1.4.1991. The Rules of 1966 in so far as inconsistent with the provisions of the 1992 Rules were repealed. The Rules of 1992 provide as under:-
2. Conditions of service of persons appointed to the Central Civil Services and posts under the administrative control of Administrator.- The conditions of service of persons appointed to the Central Civil Services and posts in Groups A, B, C and D under the administrative control of the Administrator of Union Territory of Chandigarh shall, subject to any other provision made by the President in this behalf, be the same as the conditions of service of persons appointed to corresponding posts in Punjab Civil Services and shall be governed by the same rules and orders as are for the time being applicable to the latter category of persons :
Provided that in the case of persons appointed to the services and posts under the administrative control of the Administrator, Chandigarh, so long as they are drawing pay on the rates admissible to the corresponding categories of employees of the Government of Punjab, it shall be competent for the Administrator to revise their scales of pay from time to time so as to bring them at par with the scales of pay which may be sanctioned by the Government of Punjab from time to time to the corresponding categories of employees. According to the above provisions, persons appointed to the services of the Union Territory of Chandigarh, their condition of service shall be governed by the same rules and orders as applicable for the time being to the corresponding posts in the Punjab Civil Services. So far as scales of pay are concerned, it is provided that the Administrator will be competent to revise the same from time to time so as to bring it on a par with scales of pay of Punjab Services. This notification has been interpreted by the Honble Supreme Court of India in case of U.T. Chandigarh Vs. Rajesh Kumar Basandhi reported as 2004(1) SCT 680, to the effect that the Punjab Rules would be applicable, ipso facto, without there being any formal adoption.
14. It is beyond the pale of controversy that by virtue of notification dated 13.1.1992, the post of Chief Engineer in Union Territory, Chandigarh, a Class-I post, is governed by the Punjab Service of Engineers Class-I, P.W.D. (Building and Roads Branch) Rules, 1960, as were framed by the State of Punjab for various posts including the post of Chief Engineer. It is also not in dispute that the Governor of Punjab, in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India, formulated Punjab Service of Engineers (Civil Wing), Department of Public Works (B and R Branch) Group A Service Rules, 2005 (published on 14.10.2005) (Annexure A-19), relating the recruitment and the conditions of service of the persons appointed to the Punjab Service of Engineers (Civil Wing), Department of Public Works (B and R Branch) Group A Service. As per para 11 of these rules, the Punjab Service of Engineers Class-I, PWD (B&R) Rules, 1960 and the Punjab Service of Engineers Class-II, PWD (B&R) Rules, 1965, as applicable to the members of the service, have been repealed. The definition of Chief Engineer, service and method, qualification, experience is provided in Rule 2 which is reproduced as under :
(b) Chief Engineer means the Chief Engineer (Civil) of the Department of Public Works (B and R Branch);
(d) Service means the Punjab Service of Engineers (Civil Wing Department of Public Works (B and R Branch) Group A Service. Method, Qualification and Experience for appointment by promotion to the post of Chief Engineer From amongst the Superintending Engineers, who have an experience of working as such for a minimum period of two years.
Again the Punjab Government framed Punjab Water Supply and Sanitation (Engineering Wing) Group A Service Rules, 2007 published on 20.6.2007 to govern the recruitment and conditions of service of the persons appointed to the Punjab Water Supply and Sanitation(Engineering Wing) Group-A Service. In these rules the Chief Engineer is defined to means a Chief Engineer of the Department of Water Supply and Sanitation, Punjab. The appointment is to be made from amongst the Superintending Engineers, who have an experience of working as such for a minimum period of two years. The Government of Punjab again published notification dated 14.10.2005 notifying Punjab Service of Engineers (Electrical Wing), Department of Public Works (B and R Branch) Group A Service Rules, 2005. In these rules the Chief Engineer has been defined to mean Chief Engineer (Electrical) of the Department of Public Works (B and R Branch). The appointment is to be made from amongst the Superintending Engineers, who have an experience of working as such for a minimum period of two years. One thing is for sure from these rules that the Electricity Wing does not find a mention in any of these rules governing the appointment to the post of Chief Engineer.
15. At this stage it would be relevant to comment upon the conduct of the respondent Chandigarh Administration inasmuch as they have filed written statement and in para 5 (a)&(b) thereof, a reference has been made to the aforesaid Rules of 2005 and 2007 and definition of Chief Engineer has been reproduced. The definition as reproduced by the respondents is not extracted from any of the Rules quoted by them in this para. This definition appears to has been taken from the Draft Recruitment Rules of 2011. The authorities should have been more careful in filing pleadings before a court of law else it may result in perjury.
16. The Chandigarh Administration has also framed draft rules namely Engineering Department (B&R/Public Health/Electrical / Mechanical Wing), Union Territory, Chandigarh (Group A (Non-Ministerial) Recruitment Rules, 2011 and sent for approval to the Government of India vide letter dated 3.5.2011 which are on same lines as Punjab Rules of 2005 and in fact improved version, as per which the post of Chief Engineer is to be filed up from the Superintending Engineers (Civil)/(Public Health)/(Electrical) in the B&R Wing with two years regular service in the grade and possessing degree in respective Engineering disciplines from a recognized University / Institute. These rules are pending consideration with the Central Government and the respondents wish to follow these rules also.
17. The Honble Apex Court on more than one occasion has crystallized the law that the draft rules can be acted upon by the competent authority if the intention is there to follow the same. It has been held by Honble Apex Court in Abraham Jacob and Others Vs. Union of India [(1998) 4 SCC 65] and Vimal Kumari Vs. State of Haryana and Others [(1998) 4 SCC 114], that the draft rules can be acted upon to meet urgent situations when no rule is operating. In High Court of Gujarat and Another Vs. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat and Others [(2003) 4 SCC 712], it was observed as under :-
"27. It is now trite that draft rules which are made to lie in a nascent state for a long time cannot be the basis for making appointment or recommendation. Rules even in their draft stage can be acted upon provided there is a clear intention on the part of the Government to enforce those rules in the near future.
18. Admittedly the draft rules have been framed in consonance with the Punjab Rules of 2005 and 2007 and as such we do not find any fault in action of respondents to even rely upon 2011 Rules as intention is there on their part to follow the same. Thus, the applicant is not eligible in terms of the Draft Recruitments also.
19. A perusal of the above extracted rules of 2005 would show that the Superintending Engineers having rendered service in Civil Wing of Department of Public Works (B&R Branch) only are eligible for appointment to the post of Chief Engineer. The Superintending Engineers working in field of (Electricity) and governed by the PSEB Service of Engineers (Electrical) Recruitment Regulations, 1985, are definitely do not fall in feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer and as such the applicant is out of consideration zone on the basis of 2005 rules. The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the applicant is entitled for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer on the basis of Regulations of 1965 and that Rules of 2005 would not apply to him as for framing of recruitment rules in respect of Group A and B posts in U.T. Chandigarh, only Central Government is competent whereas in this case the 2005 rules have not been framed or approved by the Central Government. The plea raised by the learned counsel for the applicant, on the face of it, is misconceived as in terms of Notification dated 13.1.1992, the service conditions of Group A, B C and D employees of U.T. employees are same as for the corresponding category of employees of State of Punjab and that being the position, the Rules of 2005 framed by the State of Punjab would automatically apply to the post of Chief Engineer in U.T. Chandigarh also and in any case it has also framed 2011 rules which are in draft stage, yet U.T. proposes to follow the same. The plea that the Central Government has not granted any approval to 2005 Rules is too farfetched as such a plea could be taken only qua U.T. rules. In this case the question of sanction to 2005 rules does not arise in view of the aim and intention of notification dated 13.1.1992. Secondly, the applicant has not challenged any of the provisions of the Rules of 2005 or even the 2011 rules except making vague and sweeping remarks that his case is to be governed by 1965 rules only, which apparently stand replaced with 2005 rules. We find merit in the plea taken by the respondents that as per 2005 rules read with 2011 draft rules, only Superintending Engineers in the Civil/Electrical/Public Health Wing who have degree / AMIE in relevant discipline and working under the Building and Road Branch are eligible for consideration to the post of Chief Engineer, on rendering of two years regular service in the cadre. The applicant has admittedly never worked as SE (B&R/PH/Electrical) as these posts are part of the B&R Wing of the Engineering Department, U.T. Chandigarh and the applicant admittedly is working as Superintending Engineer (Electricity) which is not a part of the B&R/Electrical/Public Health Wing and is, therefore, not eligible for promotion to the relevant post and he also does not have the relevant experience required under the rules of 2005. The applicant belongs to the Electricity Operations Wing which has its own set up and is governed by the Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission and Act notified by them. Thus, he cannot lay a claim to the post of Chief Engineer. The respondents have also explained effectively that even in the Punjab State, the post of Chief Engineer in B&R Wing is occupied by the Civil Engineer and for Electricity Department, a separate board namely Punjab State Electricity Board has bend constituted for generation/ distribution of electricity supply and in the Board a separate cadre has been formed, delinking it from the Punjab Public Works Department (B&R, Electrical and Public Health).
20. The plea of the applicant that his case for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer deserves to be allowed on the premises that in the case of K.K. Jerath Vs. Union of India etc. O.A.No. 639-CH-1990 decided on 6.5.1991 as upheld upto Apex Court, it has been settled that Superintending Engineer from any discipline i.e. Civil, Electrical, Mechanical is eligible for appointment. Apparently, in that case the post was governed by Punjab Service of Engineers, Class-I, P.W.D. (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1960. That decision is of 6.5.1992 and much water has flown down the rivers since then including issuance of notification dated 13.1.1992 and framing of rules of 2005 by the State of Punjab governing the post of Chief Engineer which are applicable to the same post existing in U.T. Chandigarh unless Chandigarh Administration frames its own rules. In any case, the working of the Electricity Wing is entirely different than the Civil / Public Health / Electrical Wing and is regulated by the Joint Electricity Regulatory Authority. The respondents have also explained that prior to the claim of the applicant none of the Superintending Engineers of the Electricity Wing, U.T.Chandigarh, either eligible in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, U.T. or any officer preferred claim for appointment as such in the past as said post is not covered under the Building and Road Branch. At no point of time any exceptions were made to appoint / promote an incumbent holding the post of Superintending Engineer (Electricity) since 1962 to 1.3.2012 except on two occasions. During this period nine officers having qualification of Civil Engineering with specialization in B&R Branch were appointed as Chief Engineer on deputation basis from Punjab/Haryana and 5 officers of U.T. cadre of Civil Engineering with specialization in B&R Branch were appointed by promotion as Chief Engineer. Sh. Jerath, having qualification of Electrical Engineering with specialization of Electrical (B&R Branch) was promoted as Chief Engineer. One Sh. Surinder Paul, with Degree in Electrical Engineering with specialization in the Electricity Branch, was on deputation basis from PKSEB during 2009-2010. He was working on deputation with the respondents as S.E (Electricity) and on the occurrence of vacancy of Chief Engineer U.T. Chandigarh, on retirement of Sh. Krishanjit Singh, Chief Engineer, U.T. on 31.3.2009, said officer was appointed as Chief Engineer on deputation basis for one year following his promotion as Chief Engineer in his parent department i.e. PSEB. Sh. Pal of PSEB Cadre was adjusted as Chief Engineer, as senior most Sh., S.K. Jaitley, S.E (Civil) of U.T. Cadre was declared as unfit for promotion to the post of CE, U.T. Thus, the applicant cannot get any benefit by comprising his case with the deputationists.
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this O.A. turns out to be devoid of any merit and is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Interim order dated 17.4.2013 shall stand vacated.
(UDAY KUMAR VARMA) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 06.04.2016
`jk
1
(O.A.No.484-CH-2013-
M.P. Singh Wasal. Vs. UOI etc.)