Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2795 (HP)

M R Kanwar v. HPSIDC

CWPOA/4944/2019 · 2026-03-03

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2026:HHC:5655 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPOA No.4944 of 2019 Decided on: 3rd March, 2026 Mela Ram Kanwar .......Petitioner versus Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr.Surya Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Vedhant Ranta, Advocate. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has laid challenge to office order dated 18.03.2008, (Annexure P-7) passed by the respondent- Corporation, whereby seniority of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in supersession of circular No.HPSIDC/Per-1/89-1109-20 dated 15.05.2001 was re-fixed and he was shown to be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 06.01.1995 and communication dated 30.05.2008 (Annexure P-9), whereby the grievance raised by him to count the ad-hoc services for grant of four tier pay- scale was rejected. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2026:HHC:5655 ) 2 2. The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that he was initially appointed as Junior Engineer with the respondent-Corporation on 01.02.1977. As per Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), he was eligible to be promoted and respondent-Corporation vide office order dated 01.05.1992 had promoted him along- with one Shri Suresh Kumar Trikha (S.K. Trikha) against the vacant post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). 3. Lateron, on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), the petitioner was promoted vide office order dated 06.01.1995 as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the pay-scale of Rs.2200-4000/- on regular basis with immediate effect. Thereafter, the seniority list of Assistant Engineer (Civil) was circulated vide circular dated 15.05.2001 as on 31.01.2001 and the petitioner was shown to be appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 06.01.1995 from which date, Shri S.K. Trikha was also shown to be promoted, though both the petitioner and Shri S.K. Trikha were promoted vide office order dated 01.05.1992 on adhoc basis against the vacant posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) . 4. The petitioner had made representations dated 11.05.2000, 30.05.2001 and 20.02.2008 vide Annexures P-4 ( 2026:HHC:5655 ) 3 to Annexure P-6, respectively. A perusal of Annexure P-6 also reveals that Shri S.K. Trikha, who was promoted with the petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) is also signatory to the said representation. 5. The respondent-Corporation after considering the representations made by the petitioner, re-fixed the seniority of the Assistant Engineer (Civil), vide office order dated 18.03.2008 (Annexure P-7) in supersession of circular No.HPSIDC/Per-1/89-1109-20 dated 15.05.2001 and the petitioner was shown to be appointed w.e.f. 06.01.1995 whereas, Shri S.K. Trikha w.e.f. 01.06.1992. The petitioner after coming to know about the office order dated 18.03.2008 made a representation to the respondent-Corporation to count his ad-hoc services for grant of four tier pay-scale. However, the said representation was rejected vide communication dated 30.05.2008 (Annexure P-9). 6. The grievance of the petitioner as pleaded in the writ petition is that the impugned seniority list and further rejection of his claim to not count the ad-hoc services rendered by him on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) is in violation of the principle of service jurisprudence inasmuch as once the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant ( 2026:HHC:5655 ) 4 Engineer (Civil) vide office order dated 01.05.1992 against the vacant post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), the action of the respondents in not counting the ad-hoc services is arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of the Rules. No reason has been assigned for rejecting the petitioner’s claim for counting the ad-hoc services rendered by him. 7. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and averred that Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), had been notified in November, 1994 (Annexure R-1), as per the directions given by this Court in CWP No.830 of 1993 (Annexure R-2), filed by one Roshan Lal Sharma, Head Draughtsman (Civil). The Rules had been framed on the basis of Recruitment and Promotion Rules of Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department. Based on the roster point, two posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) were to be filled-up from amongst the Junior Engineers (Civil) (JE), while the next post was to be filled-up from HDM (Civil). While promoting three JEs (Civil) as AEs (Civil) on ad-hoc basis during 1992, only two Assistant Engineers could be considered to have been promoted against vacant post ear-marked for the JEs (Civil). Therefore, according to the inter-se seniority of the Junior Engineers ( 2026:HHC:5655 ) 5 (Civil), the DPC was convened. While promoting three Junior Engineers (Civil) as Assistant Engineers (Civil) on ad-hoc basis during 1992, only two Assistant Engineers could be considered to have been promoted against vacant post ear- marked for the Junior Engineers (Civil), whereas the promotion of 3rd Junior Engineer (Civil) i.e. the petitioner as Assistant Engineer was not against the post meant for him as per roster against which the Head Draughtsman (Civil) should have been promoted. The ad-hoc promotion of petitioner as Assistant Engineer (Civil) was not in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and was thus only a stop gap arrangement. The officiation against such post cannot as such be taken into account for considering the seniority. Thus, it has been prayed that the petitioner has rightly not been assigned seniority from the initial date of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). 8. The petitioner has filed rejoinder and has reiterated the submissions made in the writ petition. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) purely on ad-hoc basis from ( 2026:HHC:5655 ) 6 the date of his taking over as Assistant Engineer (Civil) along- with one Shri S.K. Trikha against vacant posts. Thereafter, the petitioner on the basis of recommendations of the DPC was recommended to be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), vide office order dated 06.01.1995, when Shri S.K.Trikha was also promoted. The respondents had issued office order dated 18.03.2008, wherein the petitioner has been shown to be promoted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 06.01.1995, whereas Shri S.K. Trikha has been shown to be promoted w.e.f. 01.06.1992. No doubt, as per reply filed by the respondents, there were only two posts of Assistant Engineers to be filled-up from the feeder cadre of Junior Engineers (Civil), but if the same is even treated as it is, the petitioner admittedly, has worked on the post of Assistant Engineer in pursuance of office order dated 01.05.1992, when Shri S.K. Trikha was promoted with him and thus, he cannot be denied the benefit of ad-hoc service for service benefits. 11. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has not worked in pursuance of office order dated 01.05.1992, till the seniority list was circulated vide office order dated 18.03.2008, whereby he was shown to have been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. ( 2026:HHC:5655 ) 7 06.01.1995. The petitioner was promoted against the vacant post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). Further, as per reply, it is not clear that when the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) on ad-hoc basis, as per the Rules, there were only two posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) existing from the feeder category of Junior Engineers (Civil). The Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified in November, 1994 were not in existence and as per these Rules four pots have been filled up. Once the petitioner has worked on the post of Assistant Engineer(Civil) in pursuance of office order dated 01.05.1992, the services rendered by him prior to recommendations of the DPC, as per office order dated 06.01.1995, cannot be wiped out for service benefits. 12. The respondent-Corporation in the case of Shri S.K. Trikha has counted the period of ad-hoc services rendered by him w.e.f. 01.06.1992 though cited the reason that he was senior to the petitioner, but once the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) against the vacant post irrespective of the post falling to his feeding category, he cannot be denied the benefits of seniority from the date when Shri S.K. Trikha has been assigned seniority i.e. w.e.f. 01.06.1992. ( 2026:HHC:5655 ) 8 13. So far as the judgment passed by this Court in Roshan Lal Sharma’s case is concerned, this Court had not given the directions that the petitioner be not assigned seniority from the date when he was promoted earlier on ad- hoc basis. In case the appointment of the petitioner was dehors the Rules and candidature of Roshan Lal Sharma was ignored, in that case, the respondent-Corporation ought to have created a supernumerary post to accommodate Roshan Lal Sharma, but the services rendered by the petitioner cannot be ignored for grant of service benefits. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is allowed and the impugned office order dated 18.03.2008 (Annexure P-7) assigning seniority to the petitioner as Assistant Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 06.01.1995 and further rejection of his representation vide communication dated 30.05.2008 (Annexure P-9) are quashed and set aside qua the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation is directed to count the ad-hoc services rendered by the petitioner at par with Shri S..K.Trikha. All the consequential benefits be granted to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. In case the monetary benefits are not released in favour of the petitioner within three months, the same shall ( 2026:HHC:5655 ) 9 carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of expiry of three months till payment. 15. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) March 03, 2026 Judge (naveen)