( 2025:HHC:27000 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPOA No.4276 of 2019 Decided on: 11th August, 2025 Balwant Singh and others .......Petitioners versus HPSEBL and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Yoginder Pal Kapoor, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Pranav Sharma, Advocate vice Mr.Piyush Rathore, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Atul G. Sood, Advocate for respondents No.2, 5 to 10. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Heard. 2. The instant petition has been filed for following substantive relief:- “a) a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may be issued to the respondent No.1- HPSEB limited that the petitioners No.1 to 3 who are presently working as drivers on adhoc basis w.e.f. 3.10.2006 may be regularised as divers w.e.f. 26.2.2011 or an earlier date from which other similarly situated persons were regularised and grant all consequential benefits as may be due as per rules/instructions.” 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:27000 ) 2 3. The petitioners and private respondents are the Drivers on the establishment of respondent No.1-HPSEBL Limited. All of them are holding the posts of Drivers after being promoted from different categories of class-IV. The fact of the matter is that the petitioners and private respondents were initially promoted as Drivers on ad-hoc basis and their regular appointments on the post of Drivers were effected from subsequent dates. 4. The grievance raised by the petitioners is that they were promoted as ad-hoc Drivers prior to the private respondents, but by discriminating the petitioners, respondent No.1 has wrongly and illegally appointed private respondents as Drivers on regular basis before the petitioners. 5. The fact that has emerged on record and is admitted by the petitioners also is that they were promoted as ad-hoc Drivers on 03.10.2006 while they were still serving as daily wage or work charged employees. The date of regularization of services of petitioners as Conductors (class- IV employees) is 27.04.2010, as is evident from the office order No.180 dated 27.04.2010 placed on record as Annexure P-IV. That being so, the date of regularization of petitioners ( 2025:HHC:27000 ) 3 as class-IV employees will be the date on which they became eligible for being promoted to the next higher post. 6. Undisputably, the date of regularization of the private respondents as class-IV employees is prior to 27.04.2010. Thus, the grievance as raised by the petitioners has no basis as they had been regularized as class-IV employees after the date of regularization of the private respondents. In such circumstances, the private respondents would occupy higher seniority position than the petitioners and resultantly their claim for confirmation on the post of Drivers will be prior to the petitioners. 7. Once, the petitioners were not holding the substantive class-IV post, their promotion to the next higher post/level would be a misnomer as no promotion could be granted to them until they were holding the substantive feeder category post. 8. In result, I find no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. 9. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. August 11, 2025 ( Satyen Vaidya ) (naveen) Judge