Shoor Vir Singh and Others and Joot Singh and Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board and Others

K. Kannan, J.—The two writ petitions address the same grievance of the respected petitioners the combined seniority lists which were issued by the administration of Electricity Board represented through officials of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

The contentions on behalf of the petitioners are that all the petitioners were work charged Lab Attendants in the Electricity Board in MLNP Circle Hissar. The seniority list for the circle has also been issued as per Annexure P-1 to CWP No. 9683 of 1993 when all the petitioners have been shown as seniors in the promoted post as Work Charged Meter Mechanics. It appears that the M LNP Circle Hissar was later bifurcated and another circle was established at Ambala and later called Delhi circle. All the petitioners had been sent to Ambala Circle, which according to the petitioners has done without obtaining any prior option. The apple of discord was that when the combined seniority list was made and issued for the period w.e.f. 01.04.1982 to 31.03.1986, some of the private respondents had been shown as seniors to the petitioners and the seniority was maintained on the basis of date of regularisation made in the respective service. Respondent nos 4, 6, 17 and 19 belonged to a different category, namely, they were adhoc Lab Assistants and although they were also juniors from the point entry into service they were shown as seniors in the separate list which was issued as Annexure P3 for promotion to the post of Lab Assistants. A tentative combined seniority list was issued as Annexure P-8 of work charged Meter Mechanics and Regular Lab Attendants in respect of MLNP Circle Delhi.

The petitioner''s reliefs are sought on two essential facts: One, the bifurcation of the circle was made and the persons had been sent to different circles without calling for options from them and they were not apprised of any prospect to creation of posts and regularization to be done only for some of the persons in some circles and the denial of the same to others in circles where no such additional posts were created. There fell no scope for assessing tentative seniority list which was made on the basis of the date of regularisation, without notifying it to the petitioners.

In the written statement filed on behalf of the Electricity Board, the contention was that when the petitioners were posted to the different circles, they never raised any objection and again when some posts were created and when some of the private respondents have been regularized as Lab Attendants, the petitioners had obtained to promotion post as Meter Mechanics on work charged basis. Ultimately, when the seniority list of the staff of OFM P circle at Ambala, there was direction to give chance to the workmen of mutual exchange of the service of their choice and the petitioners had not exercised that option. It is also contended that a tentative seniority list of the Meter Mechanics for the period 01.04.1979 to 31.03.1982 had been circulated on 12.10.1982 and further a subsequent tentative seniority list for the period 01.04.1982 to 31.03.1986 had also been circulated amongst all the concerned officials. The communication makes specific reference to the fact that legitimate grievance against the seniority position assigned in the seniority list could be expressed through proper channel than appropriate decision taken.

This contention in reply referring to alleged options to have been granted to the petitioners among others and the contention that the tentative seniority list had been circulated to the affected persons is challenged by means of replication given by the petitioners through an affidavit of one of the petitioner Shoor Vir Singh. It is contended that the seniority list is supposed to have been issued as Annexure P2 was not brought to the notice by the Supervisor officers and none of the petitioners had knowledge of the same. It is also contended that the seniority list of regular Lab Attendants and work charged Meter Mechanics was itself not proper, for, Regular Lab Assistants could not have been put on the same list as for Meter Mechanics which is a promotion post. It is further contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that even on an earlier occasion when the case was taken for argument, the issue as alleged by the respondent had been specifically denied and the respondents were reported to have taken time to produce the relevant records to show that the tentative seniority list was put on notice but still the Electricity Board has not produced any such records before court. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, an affirmation made in the reply by the Electricity Board which is unsubstantiated and the undeniable situated of a fundamental fact of the petitioners being shown as seniors to the private respondents in the first seniority list issued as Annexure P1.

The petitioners shall succeed on what the respondents have failed to establish for. The petitioners shall be required to show no more than the fact that they were seniors by virtue of date of entry and the regularization made of juniors by posting them in different circles as per the individual preference of superior officers could not form a valid basis to sustain the seniority list. The petitioner shall succeed and writ petitions are allowed. The seniority list shall be drawn afresh taking the date of entry into the service and the seniority list maintained in Annexure P-1 as the basis. All the consequential benefits will follow after the list is redrawn and the entire exercise shall be completed within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of order.

There shall, however, be no direction as to costs.

The writ petitions are allowed.