IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3327 of 2023 Date of Decision: 12.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Dr. Neeraj Singhal & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent- State. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate, for respondent No.2-HPPCL. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs:- “(i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the impugned orders dated 16.06.2022 (Annexure P-2) issued by Director (Personnel) HPPCL and impugned orders dated 25.04.2023 vide Annexure P-8,wherein the respondent No.2 has rejected the representation of the present petitioners and whereby decision has been taken that no incumbent of 2008 onwards batch of HPSEBL will be posted in HPPCL as Dy. General Manager (Civil and Mechanical), as the same is 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 contrary to the provisions notified by Government of Himachal Pradesh in its notification No. MPP-A(3)- 1/2001-IV dated 10.06.2010, which stipulates that all posts in HPPCL of categories existing in HPSEBL, will be filled by deployment from HPSEBL; (ii) That further writ of mandamus be issued by directing the respondent authorities to fill the vacant post of Deputy General Managers (Civil) Mechanical) in HPPCL from the cadre strength of HPSEBL from 2008 batch & onwards, who are seniors to their own officers, and were recruited departmentally in the year 2009, whereas the petitioners were recruited in February, 2008 through Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission; (iii) That during the pendency of the civil writ petition either the case of present petitioners be considered provisionally for the purpose of promotion to the post of SC/DGM in HPPCL or in alternative, the entire promotional process be deferred or kept in abeyance till the final adjudication of the writ petition in the interest of equity, justice and fair play.” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, are that in the year, 2007, Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission advertised the posts of Assistant Engineers to be recruited in the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and other Hydro Electric Projects. The petitioner, being fully eligible in terms of academic and professional qualifications, applied for the post in question and was ultimately recommended for appointment against the post of Assistant Engineer in the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited in the year 3 2008, alongwith other selected candidates. In the year 2009, on account of Tripartite agreement entered interse Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, HPPCL and Government of Himachal Pradesh, some of the technical staff came to be deputed with the respondent-HPPCL on secondment basis. Petitioner herein, who was initially appointed against the post of Assistant Engineer in the year, 2008 in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, came to be promoted to the post of Senior Executive Engineer in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited in the year, 2016 and thereafter, he was also sent on secondment basis to respondent- HPPCL on the requisition sent by the respondent-HPPCL. 3. Now, precisely the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that number of officials from the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited have been granted promotion in the respondent-HPPCL during their tenure on secondment basis, whereas petitioner herein, who had been working in respondent-HPPCL for more than nine years, is being denied promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager, which is equivalent to the post of Superintending Engineer in the respondent-Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited. It is also submitted at the behest of the petitioner that though, in January 2025, respondents themselves sought option for technical staff working on secondment 4 basis for permanent absorption, but yet despite there being option exercised by the petitioner for his permanent absorption, no orders have been passed till date. 4. Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent No.2 has filed reply, wherein the factum with regard to deployment of the petitioner on secondment basis in the Office of HPPCL against the post of Senior Executive Engineer w.e.f. the year 2016 has not been disputed, but claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager has been refuted on the ground that till the time petitioner herein is not permanently absorbed in the respondent-HPPCL, he has no right to claim promotion in HPPCL. It is further averred in the reply filed on behalf of the respondent-HPPCL that both Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and HPPCL have different cadres and employee of one cadre cannot seek promotion in another cadre. 5. Mr. Shashi Kumar Shirshoo, learned counsel representing respondent-HPPCL, while making this Court peruse reply filed by the respondent-HPPCL in its entirety, though fairly admits factum with regard to Tripartite agreement arrived interse respondent-HPPCL, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and Government of Himachal Pradesh, but he stated that same was entered for execution of Hydel projects and after completion of work, majority of employees, specifically technical staff, who at one point of 5 time had been working with HPPCL, stand repatriated to Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, but some of the persons, who during their tenure on secondment basis with respondent-HPPCL got themselves absorbed in HPPCL, continue to remain with HPPCL and have been also granted promotion to higher posts as per their seniority. As per reply filed by respondent No.2, no employee of respondent-Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, who was not permanently absorbed, has been given promotion in HPPCL, and only such of the employees, who got themselves absorbed pursuant to opportunity provided by the respondent-HPPCL, have been given promotion at due place. 6. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner, for all intents and purposes, continues to be an employee of respondent-Board. Admittedly, in the year 2016, he was sent on secondment basis to the respondent-HPPCL against the post of Senior Executive Engineer, but fact remains that till date he has been not permanently absorbed. Though, reply filed by respondent No.2 suggests that some of the technical staff of respondent-Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited were granted promotion in the respondent-HPPCL at the time of execution of Hydel Projects, but same was only after their being permanently absorbed in the respondent-HPPCL. 6 7. Careful perusal of the proposed transfer scheme under Section 131(2)of the Electricity Act, 2003, Department of MPP and Power, reveals that while Hydel Projects were being constructed and were at the stage of commissioning, persons from Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited deployed in HPPCL, having requisite work experience in a particular category, were considered for appointment in HPPCL. However, subsequently on account of non- availability required staff, the respondent-HPPCL also resorted to direct recruitment, but fact remains that majority of technical staff, which though originally belonged to Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and were deployed in HPPCL was subsequently granted promotion in the respondent-HPPCL, were absorbed in HPPCL after their absorption in HPPCL. It also appears from the reply filed by respondent No.2 that while working in HPPCL, some of the technical staff availed the opportunity of promotion in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited but continued to work in HPPCL. However, after the years 2008-2009, no such promotion was granted without there being permanent absorption. 8. In nutshell, grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition, is that since some of the similarly situate persons, who belong to HPSEBL, were granted promotion in HPPCL, petitioner should have also been granted such benefit without his being permanently absorbed. However, this Court is not persuaded to 7 agree with aforesaid submission made at the behest of the petitioner. Since it is not in dispute that petitioner is borne in the cadre of Board and at present is only working on secondment basis with respondent- HPPCL, there is no occasion, if any, for the respondent-HPPCL to grant him promotion. However, having taken note of the fact that pursuant to requisition made by the respondent-HPPCL in January, 2025 for permanent absorption, petitioner, vide mail dated 8.1.2025, expressed his intention to get himself permanently absorbed in HPPCL, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that once prayer of the petitioner for permanent absorption is accepted by the respondent-HPPCL, he is entitled to promotion, as has been granted to other similarly situate persons. 9. While refuting to afore submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shashi Kumar Shirshoo, learned counsel representing respondent No.2, states that in past, three opportunities were granted to the employees of Board, who were working on secondment basis with HPPCL, for absorption, including the petitioner, but yet petitioner failed to exercise such option and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondent, while denying him promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager, which otherwise could have been only granted as per availability of post. He further submits that now, once the name of the petitioner alongwith other similarly situate persons has been 8 received by the department pursuant to the survey report submitted by General Manager, Renuka Ji Dam Project, in terms of communication dated 07.01.2025, coupled with the fact that petitioner vide communication 08.01.2025, has also given his willingness to get himself absorbed, necessary action qua the same shall be taken expeditiously in terms of policy of the respondent-HPPCL. 10. At this stage, Mr. Shashi Kumar Shirshoo, learned counsel representing respondent No.2, invited attention of this Court to notification dated 02.05.2025, issued by Secretary (Power) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, whereby Government of Himachal Pradesh ordered that employees of Board, who are on deputation with HPPCL, HPPTCL, DOE, HIMURJA and other line-departments on secondment basis will be able to exercise the option to get their services taken over by the said organizations respectively, subject to following conditions:- “(i) The terms and conditions of appointment in the HPSEBL will remain unchanged. (ii) Promotion avenues will be provided to the staff of HPSEBL and if need be, supernumerary posts shall be created as a personal measure, so that their career growth is not adversely affected. (iii) Their absorption/merger will also not affect the career prospects of the employees recruited by the HPPCL/ HPPTCL / DOE/HIMURJA in their respective cadres. They will also get promotion as per the career progressive scheme in the respective organization. 9 11. It appears that communication dated 07.01.2025, whereby information was called for by respondent-HPPCL from their respective projects with regard to employees on secondment basis, is the off shoot of communication dated 2.5.2025, whereby Government has decided to afford an opportunity to such of the employees of Board, who are working with HPPCL/ HPPTCL /DOE/HIMURJA on secondment basis. Since Government has now taken a fresh decision to afford another opportunity to the employees working on secondment basis with HPPCL and other organizations, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already exercised option to get himself absorbed on secondment basis, which proposal is pending consideration before the respondent-HPPCL, this Court has reason to presume and believe that fresh option, as detailed hereinabove, exercised by the petitioner, shall be accepted expeditiously by the respondent-HPPCL subject to fulfillment of the conditions as contained in the policy decision dated 2.5.2025. 12. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, though this Court finds no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to his claim of promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager, while his being on secondment basis in the respondent-HPPCL, but present petition is disposed of with the direction that option given by the petitioner for permanent absorption shall be considered by the competent authority 10 expeditiously, preferably within a period of one week and thereafter he shall also be considered for promotion to the post Deputy General Manager. Interim order dated 31.05.2023 passed by this Court, thereby directing the respondents not to convene DPC, shall remain in force till the final decision is taken on the option exercised by the petitioner for his permanent absorption in the respondent-HPPCL. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 12, 2025 (shankar)