DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned order dated 8.1.2009 (Annexure P -3) passed by respondent No.2, whereby, claim of the petitioner for granting deemed date of promotion as Upper Division Clerk at par with his juniors namely, G.N. Pandey and Virender Kumar Vaid in terms of revised seniority list, has been rejected.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case as made out in the present petition are that the petitioner joined as LDC in Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter called as 'HSEB') on 22.8.1974. He passed the Departmental Accounts Examination on 9.7.1976 and was given benefit of deemed date of appointment as LDC w.e.f. 20.11.1971 by taking into consideration his military service during period of emergency. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of UDC on 30.11.1976 and Assistant on 17.8.1988. Thereafter, the HSEB circulated a seniority list vide order dated 10.7.1986 by taking into consideration the date of passing the Departmental Accounts Examination instead of date of confirmation of the UDC. The benefit of promotion was to be given from the date of passing of departmental accounts examination. The said decision was challenged by way of filing CWP No. 9348 of 1988, which was disposed of vide order dated 10.9.1992 with a direction to the respondents to finalise the seniority list. The decision in said writ petition was challenged by way of filing LPA No. 192 of 1993, which was dismissed on 24.2.1998. The HSEB was bifurcated firstly into two parts i.e. TISCON and HAPCO on 15.8.1998. Thereafter TISCON was bifurcated into four companies i.e. HVPNL, UHBVNL, DHBVNL and HPGCL and the services of the petitioner were allocated to HPGCL. As per Haryana Electricity Reform (Transfer of Distribution Undertakings from Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. to Distribution Companies) Rules, 1999 (for short 'the Rules, 1999), all the benefits of services rendered in HSEB were to be recognized as service in the Companies. Accordingly, as per decision in LPA No. 192 of 1993, the petitioner was given benefit of seniority from 30.9.1977 instead of the date of passing the Departmental Accounts Examination, whereas, he was entitled to get promotion as Assistant prior to his juniors namely, G.D. Pandey and Virender Kumar Vaid.
(3.) THE present petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioner is entitled to get promotion as Assistant from the date his juniors, namely, G.N. Pandey and Virender Kumar Vaid were considered i.e. 20.1.1978. The petitioner made representation and thereafter he served a legal notice upon the respondents but no action was taken thereupon. The petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 18307 of 2008, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take a final decision on the legal notice. In compliance of the directions issued by this Court in C.W.P. No. 18307 of 2008, the claim of the petitioner was considered and rejected on the ground that his juniors were allocated to DHBVNL and HVPNL and petitioner was not entitled for benefit of deemed date of promotion.;