Harish Chand Sharma vs General Manager (Personnel) UJVN Ltd. & Others

Lok Pal Singh, J

1) Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs, among

others:

i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 03.01.2018, contained as Annexure no. 1 to the writ

petition.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay all the pay and allowances along with all

consequential and retiral benefits payable to the petitioner as Junior Engineer for the period 02.07.2014 to 31.10.2014.

2) Brief facts, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Switch Board operator in the respondent Nigam on

30.10.1979 and thereafter in September 2010 was promoted as Technical Grade I. Thereafter, in the year 2014, petitioner was promoted to the post of

Junior Engineer as per Office Memorandum dated 26.05.2014. However, the petitioner joined his duties as per joining report dated 02.07.2014, which

was accepted and forwarded by the third respondent to the second respondent with an advance copy to the fourth respondent. The petitioner rendered

his services upto 30.10.2014, the date of his retirement after serving as a duly appointed Junior Engineer by promotion. It is contended that the

petitioner was neither paid his salary and other allowances for the post of Junior Engineer, nor any retiral benefits were granted to him against the

services rendered by him against the promoted post of Junior Engineer, whereas he was promoted as per promotion letter dated 26.05.2014 and joined

as per joining report dated 02.07.2014 and worked from 02.07.2014 to 31.10.2014 and, therefore, he firstly represented before the first respondent but

to no avail and the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition before this Court, being WPSS no. 989 of 2015, for the relief of granting pay and

other allowances to him for the post of Junior Engineer w.e.f. 02.07.2014 to 31.10.2014 along with retiral benefits. The said writ petition was

registered as WPSS no. 989 of 2015. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the counter affidavit and rejoinder thereto, the

writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 05.12.2017 with the direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in

accordance with law, in the light of para 7 of the rejoinder affidavit. Para 7 of the rejoinder affidavit is extracted hereunder:

“That the facts mentioned in para 12 of the said counter affidavit are wrong and empathically denied. It is wrong to say that annexure no. 6 to the

writ petition was issued by the Asstt. Engineer, Maintenance and Operation, Dhakrani Power House in view of the communication dated 27.06.2014.

In fact the same was issued by respondent no. 3 in pursuance of letter dated 21.07.2014 issued by the respondent no. 2 to respondent no. 3 which is

annexed as annexure no. CA-5 to the said counter. In reply of allegations made in this para it is being submitted that from the uncontroverted material

evidence on record the petitioner not only joined as J.E. on 02.07.2014, he was permitted to join by all the authorities concerned who were informed on

the same day by the Asstt. Engineer as per annexure no. 3 of the writ petition. Not only this but thereafter the deponent was given full-fledged charge

of Junior Engineer, Operations Shift B, Control Room, Dhakrani Power House with a further direction to Sri Mahendar Singh, Junior Engineer who

was also promoted later on to work with the deponent as attached Junior Engineer and not only this, the deponent rendered the services of Junior

Engineer, Operations from 02.07.2014 to 31.10.2014 which is proved from the public document which is D.P.R. (Daily Progress Report) of control

room of the power house which can only be prepared by the J.E. and the same was prepared by the deponent for a period i.e. 02.07.2014 to

31.10.2014 of the control room, Dhakrani Power House where the deponent was deputed as J.E., Operator to operate the entire system during the

night shift with the assistance of Sri Mahendar Singh, J.E. who was attached with the deponent. It is pertinent to mention here that the said public

document i.e. the D.P.R. is duly signed by the deponent as J.E., Operator of control room, Dhakrani Power House. In addition to this the other public

document in support of the fact that the deponent discharged the duties of J.E., Operator, control roomk, Dhakrani Power House from 02.07.2014 to

31.10.2014 is E.M.R. i.e. Energy Meter Register which is recorded by the S.B.O. i.e. Switch Board Operator and verified by the J.E., Operation

discharging his duties on daily shift basis as per reading on the energy meters within the control room. The said is public document bearing the

signature of the deponent as Junior Engineer in the verification column. Another public document supporting the fact that petitioner served as J.E.,

Operation, Control room, Dhakrani Power House w.e.f. 02.07.2014 to 31.10.2014 is C.R.L.B. (Control Room Log Book) which is filled in on hourly

basis by the S.B.O. and verified by the J.E., Operation. The control room log book from the period of 02.07.2014 to 31.10.2014 is verified by the

deponent discharging his duties as J.E., Operations.

From the facts stated above, it is proved beyond doubt even from the public documents lying with the respondents that deponent rendered his services

from 02.07.2014 to 31.10.2014 as J.E., Operation, Control Room, Dhakrani Power House but neither he was paid salary and other allowances for the

post of J.E. for the said period nor is he being considered for the retirement benefits from the post of J.E.â€​

3) It is further averred that the petitioner submitted his representation along with the certified copy of the order dated 05.12.2017, as well as the copy

of the rejoinder affidavit to the first respondent on 11.12.2017. The fourth respondent instead of considering and deciding the representation of the

petitioner in accordance with law in the light of para 7 of the rejoinder affidavit, as directed by this Court, rejected the same in a cursory manner as

per impugned order dated 03.01.2018. Hence, present writ petition.

4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents brought on record.

5) Before further discussion it would be apt to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the order dated 05.12.2017, passed by the co-ordinate of this

Court in WPSS no. 989 of 2015. The same read as under:

“Petitioner worked as promottee Junior Engineer with the respondents from 02.07.2014 to 31.10.2014. The same was disputed by the respondents

but in the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner filed documents and also pleaded in para 7 of the rejoined affidavit.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if it is found from the record of the respondents that the petitioner worked from 02.07.2014 up to

31.10.2014 as promoted Junior Engineer, his salary and consequential benefits may be directed to be revised and accordingly be released in favour of

the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will make a representation to the respondent no. 1 after verifying the

facts on record. Learned counsel for the respondents raised no objection on such innocuous prayer.

Writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in

accordance with law, in the light of para 7 of the rejoinder affidavit, at the earliest but not later than four weeks of presentation of certified copy of

this order along with a copy of fresh representation and relevant documents.â€​

6) By impugned order dated 03.01.2018, the representation has been rejected, stating therein that the petitioner was promotee Junior Engineer (E&M),

the last date of joining on the said post was 31.05.2014, but he did not join on the said post showing his unwillingness to join on the promotional post.

7) Admittedly, the petitioner was heard in the earlier round of litigation and having heard learned counsel for the parties and having convinced with the

ground raised by the petitioner, this Court directed the respondents to decide his representation. Though the representation has been decided by the

impugned order 03.01.2018, but the fact remains that the respondents have taken a hyper technical view in deciding the representation of the

petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted on the post of J.E., but his promotion order to the post of J.E. has never been cancelled. The

contention of the respondents that the petitioner did not join on the promotional post is misconceived.

8) The letter dated 14.07.2014 written by the Asstt. Engineer would reveal that the petitioner joined on the post of J.E. and the Executive Engineer

was informed accordingly. It is further stated is said letter that the petitioner was working in shift ‘B’ as Junior Engineer, Operations; since the

petitioner joined as J.E. and worked in the department as J.E., therefore, the respondents do not have any sufficient reason to deny the service benefit

to the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer. The respondent authority has illegally rejected the representation made by the petitioner.

9) In view of the above, the impugned order dated 03.01.2018 is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The writ petition stands allowed.

Mandamus is issued to the respondent to pay the salary to the petitioner from the period he worked on the post of Junior Engineer and his pension be

fixed accordingly, as per rules.

10) No order as to costs.