2026:HHC:24799 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.4400 of 2019 Decided on: 23.06.2026 Babu Ram ...Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and Ors. ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Ms. Smridhi Rathour, Advocate vice Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 5. Ms. Muskan, Advocate vice Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner, by way of present petition, has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “a. That the respondents may very kindly be directed to consider the petitioner for work-charge status/regularisation on the basis of seniority from the date when his immediate junior respondent No.6 was regularised with all consequential benefits. b. That the order dated 22.02.2012 may very kindly be quashed and set aside.” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The facts as emerge from the petition are that the petitioner was initially engaged with the respondents-Board on 21.08.1984 on daily wage basis in Electrical Sub Division, Kunihar under Electrical Division, HPSEB Ltd. Arki, and thereafter was transferred on 26.12.1985 to Transmission and Construction (for short “T&C”) Sub Division, Kunihar, under T&C Division Solan. A person junior to him namely Prahalad Dutt (respondent No.6) was engaged on 26.11.1985 and his services were regularized in the year 1987, ignoring the seniority of the petitioner. It has further been averred that the persons, who were junior to the petitioner namely Sh. Manohar Lal, Prakash etc. granted work-charge status after condoning the short break from 22.06.1999, however, the petitioner was regularized in the year 2000. 3. Before regularizing the services of the petitioner, his services were terminated on 19.08.1998 and the petitioner feeling aggrieved by his disengagement had preferred O.A. No.1676/98, titled, Babu Ram Vs. H.P.S.E.B. and others and as 3 per order dated 04.08.1999, the termination order was set aside and the respondents were directed to re-engage the petitioner in the same capacity from where he was disengaged. The petitioner was not held entitled for back wages, but the period between his disengagement and re- engagement shall be considered for the purpose of seniority. Thereafter, his services were regularized. Since the junior to the petitioner were regularized earlier to him, he made a representation to respondent No.4 to regularize his services on the basis of seniority, when seniors and juniors to him were regularized and when no decision was taken, the petitioner had approached the Court by way of CWP No.9453 of 2011-F, titled, Babu Ram Vs. HPSEB Ltd and others, which was disposed of on 04.11.2011, directing respondent No.1 to look into the representation filed by him and take appropriate action in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment along with the writ petition. 4 4. Respondent No.1-Board, in sequel to the direction given by this Court, passed an order on 22.02.2012, rejecting the claim made by the petitioner, noticing the fact that the petitioner was initially engaged as a daily wage Beldar w.e.f. 21.08.1984 to 30.12.1984 in Electrical Sub Division, Kunihar under Electrical Division, HPSEB Ltd. Arki and thereafter worked in T&C Sub Division, Kunihar under T&C Division, Solan w.e.f. 26.12.1985 to 25.02.1986. 5. The petitioner had joined in T&C Division Solan w.e.f. 26.12.1985, whereas Sh. Prahalad Dutt, Beldar, joined in T&C Division Solan w.e.f. 26.11.1985. Prior to it, the petitioner worked in Electrical Division HPSEB Ltd. Arki w.e.f. 21.08.1984 and remained as such till 20.11.1986, thereafter he joined in T&C Division, Solan. The seniority of Beldar/T-Mate is maintained at Divisional level, being Division cadre notified vide notification dated 07.08.1991 and after joining in another Division, the previous seniority automatically stands forfeited and fresh seniority is assigned to the worker after joining in 5 another Division and as such the petitioner cannot claim his seniority above Sh. Prahalad Dutt, Beldar (respondent No.6). The petitioner has been brought on regular basis as T-Mate w.e.f. 18.03.2010. 6. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order dated 22.02.2012 (Annexure P-5), has assailed the same inter- alia on the grounds that since the petitioner was appointed prior to respondent No.5, whose services were regularized in the year 1987, he was entitled to be regularized from the same date. The respondent-Board has regularized the services of the juniors depriving the petitioner which has caused grave loss in the matter of seniority and financial benefits. The seniority is not as per law because the petitioner was transferred by the respondent-Board and not by way of his own willing and as such, he is entitled for seniority and the action on the part of the respondent-Board is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. The respondent-Board filed reply to the petition 6 and averred that in the respondent-Board, there are three wings namely Projects wing, Operation wing, Generation and Transmission wing. The petitioner was initially engaged as daily wage Beldar in the Operation wing of the respondent- Board w.e.f. 21.08.1984, on muster roll basis, in Electrical Sub Division, Kunihar, under the control of respondent No.4, where he worked upto December, 1984. Thereafter, he left the said employment from Operation wing of the respondent- Board at his own will and joined in the Transmission Sub Division Kunihar under the control of Executive Engineer, T&C Division, Solan under Generation & Transmission wing. It has been denied that the petitioner was transferred to T&C Sub Division, Kunihar. The petitioner was interviewed by the Assistant Engineer, T&C Sub Division, Saproon (Solan) during 3/86 for the construction of 132 KV Transmission line from Deothi (Solan) to Haripur (Kunihar) for a specific period and offered him the post of Beldar on daily wage basis. However, the petitioner did not accept the said offer and continued 7 himself in the Transmission Sub Division, Kunihar upto 4/89 with certain interruptions and breaks and never completed 240 working days in a calendar year. Since the petitioner though was working as daily wager in the same Division, he did not face this interview, he cannot claim regularization along with respondent No.6. Moreover, the petitioner was retrenched on the same division, where respondent No.6 was working as T-Mate during 4/89 and compensation amount of Rs.225/- was paid to him. The services of the petitioner have rightly been regularized as per parameters of regularization policy framed by the respondent-Board. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially engaged on daily wage basis in Electrical Sub Division, Kunihar on 21.08.1984 and private respondent No.6 was engaged on 26.11.1985. It is also not in dispute that though the petitioner was interviewed by the Assistant Engineer, T&C, 8 Sub Division, Saproon, during 3/86 for the construction of 132 KV Transmission line from Deothi Solan to Haripur, Kunihar, but he did not accept the said offer and continued to serve in the Transmission Sub Division, Kunihar upto 4/89 with certain interruptions. It has also been recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner had worked in Electric Division Arki w.e.f. 21.08.1984 till 20.11.1986, meaning thereby he was appointed earlier to respondent No.6 and wrongly mentioned his appointment as on 26.12.1985. Further, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the respondent-Board had considered that he was appointed on 26.12.1985 and as per seniority of Beldar/T-Mate, the same is maintained at Divisional level being Division cadre notified vide Notification dated 07.08.1991. Once the petitioner had joined his duties on 21.08.1984, his service conditions cannot be governed by the Notification dated 07.08.1991 which admittedly is after his joining. As per this Notification, the seniority has to be maintained at Divisional level. The services rendered by the 9 petitioner in one Division after joining in another Division cannot be forfeited. 10. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis on 21.08.1984 and further services of respondent No.6 were regularized as T-Mate in the year 1985 and thus, the Notification issued on 07.08.1991 is not at all attracted in the case of the petitioner for the purpose of assigning seniority at Divisional level being Division cadre. The service rendered by the petitioner on daily wage basis w.e.f. 21.08.1984 cannot be ignored, once the respondents have admitted the said fact that he was appointed on the post of Beldar and recorded in the order dated 22.02.2012 that he continued to work as Beldar in Electric Division Arki w.e.f. 21.08.1984 and remained as such till 20.11.1986. The respondent-Board has not disputed these facts while filing reply and thus, the petitioner being senior to respondent No.6 deserves to be regularized as T-Mate from the year 1987 when respondent No.6 was regularized. 10 11. The respondent-Board has taken a plea in the reply that respondent No.6 had faced the interview for the post of T-Mate on 28.08.1987, after sponsoring his name for the said post, but when the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide office order dated 22.08.2012, no such stand has been taken and his claim has been rejected only on the ground that the seniority of Beldar and T-Mate is maintained at Divisional level being Division cadre notified vide Notification dated 07.08.1991. Once the petitioner had been serving with the respondent-Board and did not join in pursuance to the interview conducted by the Assistant Engineer T&C Sub Division Saproon, Solan Division 3/86 and continued to serve in the transmission Sub Division, Kunihar upto 4/89, the plea taken by the respondent-Board that he did not complete 240 days in a calendar year, cannot be accepted, more particularly, when respondent No.6 was regularized as T-Mate in the year 1987. 12. The injustice has been caused to the petitioner, for 11 the reason, that at one point of time even his services were terminated and he was forced to approach the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal and vide order dated 04.08.1999, the order of termination was quashed and the period between disengagement and re-engagement was ordered to be considered for the purpose of seniority. Thereafter, when the petitioner had approached the Court to seek regularization of his services on the seniority basis, in the year 2011, a direction was given to the respondent-Board to consider his representation and take a decision within three months. Thereafter, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected, taking note of the fact that the seniority list of Beldar/T-Mate is maintained at Divisional level as per Notification dated 07.08.1991. Since the petitioner was appointed as Beldar prior to respondent No.6, his regularization on the post of T-Mate, which has been done w.e.f. 18.03.2010, ought to have been from the date when his junior i.e. respondent No.6 has been brought on regular basis as T-Mate in the year 1987. 12 13. The non-grant of regularization to the petitioner since 1987 is affecting him every month since he is getting less salary. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in such like matters, where an employee is being affected by paying less salary every month, the Court can deny the arrears from the date of actual regularization, but the employee cannot be denied the financial benefits. 14. As already noticed above, the petitioner has been harassed by the respondent-Board and when the order was passed, the plea now taken that name of respondent No.6 was sponsored by Employment Exchange and he had faced the interview was not noticed. It clearly shows that the petitioner is being given step motherly treatment. Once the junior to the petitioner has been regularized earlier to him, it is sheer violation of Articles of 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and thus, the impugned order dated 22.02.2012 (Annexure P-5), passed by the respondent-Board is not sustainable in the eyes of law and as such is quashed. 13 15. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.02.2012 (Annexure P-5), passed by respondent-Board is quashed and set aside, with a direction to the respondent-Board to regularize the services of the petitioner as T-Mate w.e.f. 1987 when services of respondent No.6 were regularized with all consequential benefits. The petitioner is held entitled to the benefits on notional basis from the year 1987 till three years prior to the date of institution of the present petition and thereafter on actual basis. The respondent-Board is directed to pay the arrears to the petitioner within three months from today, and in case arrears are not released in favour of the petitioner, he shall be entitled to interest @6% per annum on the arrears from today, till actual payment to him. 16. The petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 23 rd June , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Kiran) Judge