AMRI RAM AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
LAWS(HPH)-1981-1-5
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on January 08,1981

AMRI RAM Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

UNION OF INDIA V/S. P. K. ROY [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA V. MADAN LAL [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

RAVDEEP KAUR VS. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1981-7-20] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Since in the above three writ petitions common question of law and facts are involved, the same can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment. It is, however, appropriate to narrate in brief the relevant facts, in each writ petition, separately.
(2.)The facts in C.W. P. No. 87 of 1972 be stated. The petitioners were employees of the erstwhile Electricity Board of the composite State of Punjab and were serving as Upper Division Clerks in the aforesaid Board, till it came to be dissolved by virtue of the provisions of the Punjab State Reorganisation Act, with effect from 2-5- 1967. The petitioners were thereafter allocated to Himachal Pradesh. According to the petitioners their terms and conditions of service were governed by the rules known as "Punjab Public Works Department Electricity Branch Provincial Service Class III (Subordinate Posts) Rules, 1952, which were mutatis mutandis applied by the Punjab State Electricity Board. A copy of the rules is annexed as Annexure PA to the writ petition. As a result of the allocation of the services of the petitioners to Himachal Pradesh, seniority of the petitioners was to be fixed in the integrated service of the Multi-purpose Project and Power Department (MPP and Power) of Himachal Pradesh, since there was no corresponding State Electricity Board in Himachal Pradesh. It is contended that on account of the provisions of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, the Central Government had issued a letter dated 14-2-1967 (Annexure PC) whereby the formula of equation of posts as also fixation of seniority was laid down by the Central Government. It is contended that the Central Government had laid down the following principles for the determination of the equivalent posts:
(a) Nature and duties of a post.

(b) responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding the post, the extent or territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged.

(c) Minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post, and

(d) Salary of the post.

(3.)It is pointed out that since the dearness allowance in Punjab was not merged with the initial pay, the pre-revised scale was the. determining factor to find out an equivalent post. By virtue of Annexure PE a tentative equation was circulated amongst the employees and representations were called for from them. In the said list of equation, the Upper Division Clerks were equated with the Accounts Clerks. The petitioners represented against the same and contended that they should have been equated with the Upper Division Clerks of Himachal Pradesh MPP and Power Department in accordance with the formula laid down by the Central Government. The representation (Annexure PF) was made. Thereafter another provisional equation was circulated as contained in Annexure PG wherein the Upper Division Clerks were divided into two parts, that is, Upper Division Clerks (Head Office Cadre) and Upper Division Clerks (combined Circle cadre). The former were equated with the Central scale Upper Division Clerks and the latter were enbloc placed below Circle Assistants/Accounts Clerks MPP and Power Department. According to the petitioners even this equation was not proper in accordance with the principles laid down by the Central Government, referred to above. This equation was, however, held to be final in view of the decision of the Advisory Committee set up under section 82 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act. The petitioners have contended that this final equation is not proper and is illegal and discriminatory. It is further contended that the final equation has been made by the Advisory Committee and representations were rejected by the said Committee and the Central Government did not apply its mind to the case. It is also contended that the equation is in direct conflict with the principles laid down by the Central Government. It is also pointed out that the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity to show cause when the equations were made to their disadvantage. It is contended that there are no orders on the record that the representations made by the petitioners were rejected by the Central Government or the seniority list or the equations made have been approved by the Central Government. In the writ petition the petitioners have elaborated the respective duties and functions performed by the petitioners in the Punjab State Electricity Board and by their counter parts in the MPP and Power Department, in Himachal Pradesh, to justify their claim.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.