Netar Singh vs State Of H.P. & Others

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking his promotion to the Grade of Work Inspector from the due date with all benefits incidental thereof i.e.

date from which his juniors respondent No.4-Jaipal and respondent No.5-Mast Ram have been promoted.

In response to the petition, in preliminary submissions, stand of the respondents-Department is as under:-

“In fact, from the kind perusal of entire facts and circumstances the claim of applicant appeared to be based on record. The claim of the applicant

for promotion as Work Inspector shall be processed by the Respondent No.3 i.e. Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Sangrah and after decision of

higher authorities the claim of applicant will be considered in accordance with law.â€​

In reply on merit, response of the Department is as under:-

“Para-6(i) & (ii) That in reply this Para including sub-paras it is respectfully submitted that applicant and Respondent NO.4 & 5 were granted work

charge status as beldar in the respondent department vide order dated 6.1.1996, 21.10.2000 and 4.2.1995 respectively. The applicant was promoted as

Mate vide office order No.PW-SE-XII-Nahan/R & P/WC/E-II/2002-6354-6404 dated 27.8.2002. Similarly the respondent NO. 4 & 5 were also

promoted as Mate vide order(s) dated 15.1.2003 respectively. The applicant and Respondent No.4 & 5 as per their academic and technical

qualification were due for promotion as Work Inspector. Further it is relevant to mention here that the respondent No.2 vide its letter No. 13155 dated

30.1.2009 has directed all the field offices of HPPWD to supply the seniority list of daily wage beldars who posses diploma in Civil Engineering and

ITI certificate in the trade of Draughtsman, Surveyor and Building Construction as well as the list of eligible Mates to his office. In this behalf the

Respondent No.3 vide letter No. PW/SNG/CB/EA-II/2008-09 -722 dated 1.6.2009 supplied the seniority list of eligible Mates to the office of

Superintending Engineer, HPPWD 12th Circle Nahan. In this seniority list Annexure R-1, the applicant was shown at Sr. No.12. While the

Respondent No.4 & 5 were depicted at Sr. No.2 & 9 respectively. Further Superintending Engineer, HPPWD 12th Circle Nahan vide letter No. PW-

SE-XII-Nahan/A.O-140/2009-451-56 dafted 27.5.2009 supplied the final seniority list of all the eligible workmen to the office of Respondent No.2. In

this seniority list the respondent NO.4 & 5 were depicted at Sr. No. 1 & 4 in the category of Mate. But the name of applicant was inadvertently

shown at Sr. No. 4 in the category of Beldar. Due to this bonafide mistake the respondents No.4 & 5 were promoted as Work Inspector but the

applicant was left out. But due to inadvertent mistake on the part of Superintending Engineer 12th Circle Nahan the applicant was skipped since his

name was shown in the seniority list of beldars and the Respondent NO.4 & 5 were promoted as Work Inspector vide order dated 18.2.2010 &

5.3.2010. Upon noticing the mistake of Superintending Engineer, 12th Circle Nahan, immediately the applicant was promoted as Work Inspector vide

office order Annexure P-3. Further the Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Sangrah offered promotion as Work Inspector to applicant vide order

dated 13.5.2015. This offer was also accepted by the applicant and he joined on 15.5.2015. Now the applicant has filed present OA, therein he

claimed promotion as Work Inspector from the date his counterparts were promoted. Now the claim of applicant for promotion as Work Inspector

shall be processed by the Respondent NO.3 i.e. Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Sangrah and after decision of higher authorities the applicant

shall be considered for the relief sought in this OA.â€​

From the aforesaid reply, it is evident that Department has admitted its mistake stating it to be bonafide mistake occurred, on account of wrong

depiction of seniority and category of the petitioner by concerned officials/officers.

It is admitted by respondents-Department that petitioner, respondents No.4 and 5 were appointed as Beldars on 6. 01.1996, 21.10.2000 and

04.02.1995 respectively. Petitioner was promoted as Mate prior to respondents No.4 and 5 on 27. 08.2002, whereas, respondents No.4 and 5 were

promoted as Mate on 15.01.2003. Further promotional channel available to petitioner, respondents No.4 and 5, was promotion to the post of Work

Inspector. It is fairly admitted by the respondents-Department that at that time, petitioner was wrongly depicted in the seniority list at Sl.No.12 below

respondent No.4-Jaipal and respondent No.5-Mast Ram despite the fact that he was senior to them and further that at the time of preparing list of

Matriculate mates/beldars who had already been regularized by the office of Superintending Engineer, petitioner was wrongly depicted in the list of

beldars instead of Mates and, therefore, by mistake his juniors have been promoted prior to him and his name was left out at that time.

In the last, in reply, it is stated that claim of the petitioner for promotion as Work Inspector from the due date, shall be processed by respondent

No.3-Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Sangrah and after decision of higher authorities petitioner shall be considered for the relief sought in this

petition.

Reply was filed in January 2017 and we are in 2021. No process has been initiated by the respondents-Department till date. It is a sorry state of

affairs of the Department that despite having been noticed the mistake, no steps have been taken to rectify it and to redress the grievance of the

petitioner that too after filing reply-affidavit in this case to that effect.

In the aforesaid circumstances, present petition is allowed with a direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to undertake process for rectifying the mistake

and promote the petitioner from due date, i.e. 18.02.2010, the date from which his junior has been promoted with all consequential benefits including

seniority and monetary benefits on or before 31.08.2021. Arrears shall also be paid on or before 30.09.2021, failing which respondents-Department

shall also be liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the arrears from the date of accrual till final payment thereof. In that eventuality respondents-

Department shall be at liberty to recover the interest amount from its officers/officials who would be responsible for delaying the matter.

Present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending application(s), if any.