Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Kirpal Singh And Others vs Himachal Pradesh State Electricity ... on 10 December, 2019

Bench: L. Narayana Swamy, Jyotsna Rewal Dua

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                          CWP No. 4043 of 2019




                                                                               .

                                                          Decided on: 10.12.2019





    Kirpal Singh and others                                                 ...Petitioners

                                              Versus





    Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board                                ...Respondents
    Limited and others


    Coram


    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice.
    The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

    Whether approved for reporting?1



    For the petitioners:                 Mr.   Sanjeev    Bhushan,    Senior




                                         Advocate,   with   Ms.    Abhilasha
                                         Kaundal, Advocate.





    For the respondents:                 Mr. Vikrant Thakur and Ms. Suman
                                         Bhimta, Advocates.





    L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice. (Oral)

The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners and the private respondents joined the services of the respondent­Board as Electricians/Sub Station Assistants/ 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Junior Engineers/Linemen and on the basis of their length of service since their entering into service, the petitioners are .

seniors to the private respondents, however, without considering their seniority, the respondent­Board is now making an effort to promote the private respondents.

2. It is their further contention that the respondent­ Board without publishing the latest seniority list, which is necessary for effecting the promotions, is considering the cases of the private respondents for promotion on the basis of the seniority list of the year 2006.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have made various representations including the representation at Annexure P­2 (undated) to the respondents, but the said representations have not been considered so far. Hence, it is prayed that until and unless the seniority list is finalized, the private respondents may not be considered for further promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent­Board submits that at the first instance, the petitioners should have ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 20:39:01 :::HCHP 3 approached the respondent­Board to make out a case for redressal of their grievances, but the petitioners, without .

bringing anything to the knowledge of the respondent­Board, have directly approached this Court. Under these circumstances, it is his submission that the petitioners may make out their cases for redressal of their grievances before the respondent­Board and the same shall be considered strictly in accordance with law.

5. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the material available on record.

6. The bone of contention of the petitioners is that the respondent­Board is considering the cases of the private respondents for promotion, who are juniors to the petitioners, but except a bald assertion that seniority list of the year 2006 is being made basis for promotions, no material has been placed on record in support of their contention.

7. Even if the seniority list of the year 2006 has been finalized and it has become the final seniority list, the said seniority list has not been challenged by the petitioners in the instant proceedings. If the case of the petitioners is that the ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 20:39:01 :::HCHP 4 private respondents are juniors to them, they can make out their case before the respondent­Board. Before approaching .

this Court, the petitioners should first approach the concerned Authorities by making representation(s) or demand bringing all the facts to their knowledge and on consideration, in case the decision goes against the petitioners, it is open for them to approach this Court. It is premature to approach this Court at this stage.

8. Under these circumstances, we direct the petitioners to approach the respondent­Board by making representations highlighting their grievances and in case such representations are made, it is for the respondent­Board to consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

9. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.

(L. Narayana Swamy) Chief Justice (Jyotsna Rewal Dua) Judge December 10, 2019 ( rajni ) ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 20:39:01 :::HCHP