( 2025:HHC:24207 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5884/2023 Decided on: 25.07.2025 Muli Chand …Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan and Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Respondents No.4 & 5 were proceeded ex parte on 23.11.2023. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Petitioner’s simple case is that he was eligible to be considered for further promotion from the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) to that of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), but he was illegally left outside the purview of consideration zone, whereas his juniors being respondents No.4 & 5 were considered and promoted as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on 23.08.2023. Petitioner seeks 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 ( 2025:HHC:24207 ) quashing of this promotion order qua respondents No.4 & 5 and further direction to the respondents for convening the Review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for considering his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) w.e.f. 23.08.2023. Though, respondents No.4 & 5 stand served, but have chosen not to contest this petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. The case 3(i) Posts of Electrician, Lineman and T-Mate are Class-III category posts and form feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in the respondents-HPSEBL. Petitioner, respondent No.4 and respondent No.5 all belong to Scheduled Tribes category and were appointed on 10.09.1997, 12.01.1998 and 01.12.1997, respectively. Petitioner was appointed as Electrician, respondent No.4 as Lineman and respondent No.5 was appointed as T-Mate. In this Class-III category, petitioner was senior most in terms of his prior date of appointment. All the above incumbents were promoted to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical). Petitioner was promoted on 27.12.2005, whereas, respondents No.4 & 5 both were promoted as Junior Engineer (Electrical) on 01.12.2009. Petitioner, thus, was senior to 3 ( 2025:HHC:24207 ) respondents No.4 & 5 on the basis of his prior date of promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical). All incumbents belong to category of non-diploma holder. 3(ii) Final seniority list of Junior Engineers (Electrical) Degree holder/Diploma holder/Non-Diploma holder, as it stood on 01.01.2011 was circulated by the respondents on 13.12.2012. Name of the petitioner figured at serial No.233, whereas, respondents No.4 & 5 were at serial Nos. 329 & 330 in this seniority list. The petitioner, thus, enjoyed higher seniority position than respondents No.4 & 5. 3(iii) It appears that at this stage Kirpal Singh & Ors Vs. HPSEBL & Ors.2 was instituted against the seniority list circulated by the respondents. The writ petition was disposed of on 10.12.2019 with direction to the petitioners therein to approach the respondent- HPSEBL by making representations highlighting their grievances with further observations that in case such representations were made, it would be for the respondent-HPSEBL to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Representations preferred by the aggrieved persons were considered by the respondent-HPSEBL. Consequently, the order was passed by the respondents on 15.09.2020. 3(iv) Revised final seniority list of Junior Engineers (Electrical) Non-Diploma Holders as it stood on 01.01.2019 was circulated by the respondent-HPSEBL on 10.02.2021. Names of 2 CWP No. 4043/2019 decided on 10.12.2019 4 ( 2025:HHC:24207 ) respondents No.4 & 5 were at serial No. 96 & 97, whereas that of petitioner was at serial No.135 of this seniority list. The petitioner, thus, was shown junior to the aforesaid respondents. 3(v) On 09.03.2021, the respondent-HPSEBL circulated final integrated seniority list of Junior Engineers (all categories) as it stood 01.01.2019. Names of respondents No.4 & 5 appeared at serial No. 197 & 198, whereas, that of petitioner was reflected at Serial No. 257 of the seniority list. Petitioner, thus, was reflected as Junior to respondents No.4 & 5. 3(vi) Kirpal Singh and others vs. HPSEB ltd. and others3 was instituted in relation to the seniority list of Junior Engineers drawn by the respondent-HPSEBL. It appears that some objections were preferred against the seniority position. The objections were considered and after considering the objections, petitioner was granted seniority over and above respondents No.4 & 5. In the final seniority list of Junior Engineer (Electrical) drawn on 19.04.2023 reflecting position as on 01.01.2023, name of the petitioner figured at serial No.36, whereas respondents No.4 & 5 appeared at Serial No. 39 & 40 of this seniority list. The petitioner became senior to the said respondents. 3(vii) Petitioner’s grievance is to the office order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the respondent-HPSEBL. In terms of this 3 CWP No. 734/2020 pending adjudication 5 ( 2025:HHC:24207 ) order, on the basis of recommendations of Class-I DPC, respondent- HPSEBL ordered promotions inter-alia of respondents No.4 & 5 to the post of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) in the level 18 of the pay matrix. Petitioner, who was senior to respondents No.4 & 5 in the seniority list of Junior Engineer (Electrical) issued on 19.04.2023 that depicted the position as on 01.01.2023 was not included in the zone of consideration, thus was not promoted as Assistant Engineer (Electrical). 4. Consideration The sole defence taken by the respondents-HPSEBL in their reply as urged by their learned counsel during hearing is based upon the interim orders passed in CWP No. 734/2020. According to learned counsel for the respondents-HPSEBL, because of pendency of the said petition and the interim order passed therein, the respondents-HPSEBL had kept the seniority list of Junior Engineer (Electrical) dated 19.04.2023 in abeyance and had ordered promotion of respondents No.4 & 5 on the basis of old the seniority list that was circulated on 09.03.2021 showing position as on 01.01.2019. This defence is absolutely untenable. The orders passed in CWP No.734/2020 have been placed on record. Relevant orders passed in CWP No. 734/2020 are being referred to hereinafter: - a. On 17.02.2020, the said petition was listed for the first time and notice was issued. CMP No. 2080/2020 seeking interim 6 ( 2025:HHC:24207 ) relief was disposed of as under with the observation that the promotions made shall abide by the final outcome of the writ petition: - “CMP No. 2080 of 2020 “The promotions made vide Annexure P-3, shall be subject to the final out come of the present writ petition. The application stands disposed of accordingly.” b. On 21.08.2020, the respondent-HPSEBL was restrained from making any promotion as under: - “List on 24.08.2020. In the meanwhile, no promotions be made by the respondents.” c. On 24.03.2021, interim orders passed by the Court in the matter from time to time, were vacated with further observations that the respondent-HPSEBL was free to make promotion, which would abide by the final outcome of the petition. Relevant portion of the order reads as under: - “On 17.02.2020, learned Vacation Judge was pleased to direct that the promotions made vide Annexure P-3, shall be subject to the final outcome of the present petition. This order was directed to be continued when the matter came up before the learned Division Bench on 24.8.2020 and 27.8.2020. However, when the matter came up for consideration on 28.08.2020, the respondents were restrained from making any further promotions as is evident from the said order, which reads as under: We are really shocked and dismayed at the stand taken by the respondents-Board which is nothing short of being cantankerous. 7 ( 2025:HHC:24207 ) 2. When the petitioners approached this Court earlier by filing CWP No. 4043 of 2019, the respondents-Board took specific objection that the petitioners should have first approached the authorities by making representation(s) or demand bringing all the facts to their knowledge so that a consideration order could be passed. 3. This led to the disposal of the petition with direction to the petitioners to approach the respondents-Board by making representations highlighting their grievances and it was observed that in case representations are made, it would be for the Board to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioners thereafter approached the respondents-Board by filing a representation which was duly received by the respondentsBoard on 01.01.2020 as acknowledged by Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, learned standing counsel for the respondentsBoard. 5. Admittedly, the said representation has not been decided, constraining the petitioners to file the instant petition. 6. On 17.02.2020, this Court passed an interim order directing the promotions made vide Annexure P-3, to be subject to the final outcome of the present writ petition. Even after the said date, the respondents-Board till date has not filed their reply, but continued to make promotions constraining this Court to pass restraint orders against the respondents-Board by directing them not to make any promotions. 7. Today, learned counsel for the respondents-Board seeks vacation of the stay order, that too, without even filing the reply or placing on record the decision taken by the respondents-Board on the representation made by the petitioners. 8. To say the least, the stand being taken by the respondents-Board is unfair as they themselves are not in a 8 ( 2025:HHC:24207 ) position to take a decision on the representation of the petitioners and yet want the stay to be vacated. 9. Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents-Board would contend that the decision at the present times, when the State is facing COVID-19 pandemic is not possible as all the Members of the Board of Directors cannot sit together and take decision as the issues are complicated and require detailed deliberations. 10. Even this contention of the learned counsel for the respondents-Board is fallacious and absurd as in these current times all the proceedings and meetings are being conducted and held on virtual platform, we really fail to understand why the respondents-Board cannot take a decision on the virtual platform. 11. If the stand of the respondents-Board would have been bonafide, fair and honest, we really fail to understand why then they should not have taken a decision on the representation when they received a representation from the petitioners pursuant to the directions of this Court on 01.01.2020. 12. It is nearly eight months that the respondents received the representation and we can take judicial notice of the fact that the lockdown was only imposed after more than two and half months of the receipt of the representation on 24.03.2020. Even thereafter, the conditions as were imposed in the first lockdown have been considerably relaxed and today all the organs of the Government are taking decisions either physically or at the virtual platform. In such circumstances, we really fail to understand why the respondents-Board cannot take a decision- is it because of the incapability or in incapacity of the respondents-Board? 13. We leave it to the wisdom of the respondents-Board and direct them to take a decision on the representation and also file reply within a period of 15 days from today, failing which all the respondents shall personally appear before this Court on the next date of hearing. 9 ( 2025:HHC:24207 ) 14. No ground for vacation of the stay is made out as the Board cannot take advantage of its own wrongs that too because of its dominant position. Consequently, the request of the respondents-Board is declined. Interim order to continue. List on 18.09.2020.” 2. It is evident from the aforesaid order that what weighed with the Court for staying the promotions was that the respondents-Board had been acting unfairly as they had not taken any decision on the representation of the petitioners and yet wanted the stay to be vacated (as referred in para-8) 3. Now, that the respondents-Board have taken a decision which has been placed on record alongwith the short reply. 4. We deem it proper not to continue with the stay order as the persons have remedy available to them under the law in case they are aggrieved by the decision of the Board. Accordingly, the interim orders passed by this Court, from time to time are vacated and the respondents-Board are free to make promotions, which needless to say, shall abide by the final outcome of this petition. List for consideration/hearing on 12.05.2021. CMP Nos. 3462 and 3468 of 2021. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicants states that in view of the aforesaid order, he does not press both the applications and the same are dismissed as not pressed. Copy dasti.” The orders passed in CWP No. 734/2020 make it evident that there was never any direction to the respondents- HPSEBL to make promotion on the basis of old seniority list 10 ( 2025:HHC:24207 ) circulated on 09.03.2021 or to keep seniority list dated 19.04.2023 in abeyance. Though on 21.08.2020, respondents were ordered not to make promotions but the said order was vacated on 24.03.2021 with the rider that promotions were to abide by the final outcome of the writ petition. The said petition is still pending adjudication. It is unfathomable as on what basis, respondents-HPSEBL kept the seniority list dated 19.04.2023 in abeyance and proceeded to make promotions on the basis of old seniority list circulated on 09.03.2021, which had been superseded by the seniority list dated 19.04.2023. The only reason to keep seniority list dated 19.04.2023 in abeyance is attributed to pendency of Kirpal Singh & Ors.3. However, there is no direction in the said petition for keeping the seniority list issued on 19.04.2023 in abeyance. There was no interim order against the seniority list dated 19.04.2023, which had been issued by the respondents-HPSEBL after considering the objections. All interim orders restraining the respondents-HPSEBL from making promotions on the basis of said list stood vacated. Despite this specific direction, respondents’ action of keeping seniority list dated 19.04.2023 in abeyance and making promotions of respondents No.4 & 5 on the basis of old & superseded seniority list was an illegal action. Respondents No.4 & 5 were promoted as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on 23.08.2023 that is much after the vacation of the interim order passed by the Court and after issuance of the final 11 ( 2025:HHC:24207 ) seniority list dated 19.04.2023. The said final seniority list dated 19.04.2023 was not under any restraint order or eclipsed from being acted upon. Promotions were required to be made on the basis of this seniority list and not on the basis of old seniority list circulated on 09.03.2021. No other point was urged. 5. In view of above discussion, petitioner’s grievance is genuine that despite being senior he had been unlawfully deprived of his right of consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by the respondents-HPSEBL and by the promotion of his juniors-respondents No.4 & 5 to the aforesaid post under office order dated 23.08.2023. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 23.08.2023 to the extent it promotes respondents No.4 & 5 to the posts of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) is quashed and set aside. Respondents-HPSEBL are directed to convene review Departmental Promotion Committee for considering eligible Junior Engineers (Electrical) belonging to Non- Diploma Holder category for their promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) keeping in view final seniority list of Junior Engineers (Electrical) dated 19.04.2023 (Annexure P-1). All consequential actions shall follow. This exercise be carried out within four weeks from today. 12 ( 2025:HHC:24207 ) The present petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 25th July, 2025(rohit)