Punjab-Haryana High Court
S.P. Gautam & Ors vs Haryana Power Generation Corpn. Ltd. & ... on 2 August, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No.17186 of 2010
Date of decision: 2.8.2012
S.P. Gautam & ors.
-----Petitioner(s)
Vs.
Haryana Power Generation Corpn. Ltd. & ors.
-----Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to
see judgment?
2. To be referred to reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present:- Mr. K.S. Banayana, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate
for respondents No.4 to 13.
---
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
1. The petitioners are working as Junior Engineer- I/Generation in HPPGCL Thermal, Panipat. They had joined in the year 1980 as Work Charge Fitters and were later on promoted and their services were regularized on the post of Junior Engineer on 1.4.1987.
CWP No.17186 of 2010 2
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the office order dated 15.9.2005 (Annexure P-2), whereby in exercise of power contained under Clause (c) of Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 read with Haryana Electricity Reforms Act, 1997 and all other enabling power in this behalf, the Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited amended the recruitment and promotion policy of the thermal staff. A further challenge has been laid to the seniority lists dated 31.10.2008 (Annexure P-5) and 19.5.2009 (Annexure P-6) and the order dated 20.8.2010 (Annexure P-9) as representation against the policy, Annexure P-2, was rejected vide order dated 20.8.2010 (Annexure P-9).
3. It is not in dispute that amended policy (Annexure P-
2) has been framed by the respondents with the approval of Board of Directors after considering the views of the representatives of the parties concerned. Not only this, on the basis of the abovesaid policy, seniority lists (Annexures P-5 and P-6) were issued and thereafter, the petitioners further filed objections to the aforesaid seniority lists, which have also not been accepted.
4. It may be seen that the only objection raised by the petitioners to the policy (Annexure P-2) and order (Annexure P-9) is on the ground that earlier, the demand of private respondents for fixation of separate quota for Foreman Grade-I for promotion CWP No.17186 of 2010 3 to the posts of Junior Engineer-I was not accepted. However, the aforesaid argument raised on behalf of the petitioners is untenable, as the policy (Annexure P-2) was framed with the approval of the competent authority i.e. Board of Directors while exercising its statutory powers under Clause (c) of Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 read with Haryana Electricity Reforms Act, 1997 and thus, no exception can be taken to the said policy on the ground that earlier, the demand of the private respondents for separate quota for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer-I was not accepted. It may also be noticed that vide aforesaid policy, 80% posts of Junior Engineer-I are to be filled up by promotion from Junior Engineer/Generation and 20% posts from the Foreman-I. It has not been stated as to how the fixation of the aforesaid quota is bad. It may also be noticed that except the aforesaid grounds, as raised, there is no other challenge laid to the seniority lists (Annexures P-5 and P-6).
5. Thus, in view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no merit in this petition.
6. Dismissed.
August 02, 2012 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE