IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Dinesh Mehta, Rameshwar Vyas, JJ.
D.K. Garg S/o Shri Shivcharan Lal Garg and ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Energy and Ors. – Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 13772, 13775 of 2016
Decided On : 06-01-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 309, 226 , 32, 16 and 14 - Rajasthan Power Sector Reforms Act, 1999 - Sections 14, (5) of 115 , 115 to 117 , 15, 16 and 58 - Posts of Assistant Engineers - Requirement of Feeder Renovation - Petitioners; petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Junior Engineer petitioner No. 2 was appointed - They were promoted to post of Assistant Engineer against vacancies - But later has been transferred to Principal Seat by order by Hon'ble Chief Justice - This writ petition also raises a somewhat similar grievance - As basic grievance namely, merging post with or converting post of Feeder Manager to Assistant Engineer is common, both writ petitions are being disposed of conjointly - Assistant Engineer are required to be filled in by direct recruitment respondent meant to be filled in by promotion – Held, Petitioners' grievance regarding conferring seniority concerned, in our opinion, even if they were assigned seniority from date of amendment, it would have become a cause of bruise or heart burn to Assistant Engineers, who were promoted - It is duty of the employer to ensure that there is no stagnancy in any cadre - If redressal of genuine grievance of some of the employees leads to loss of opportunity or reduction of chance to another set of employees, such decision cannot be held illegal or arbitrary - Feeder Managers have been accommodated against 74 posts kept vacant out of quota of direct recruitment, present petitioners, who are in service Junior Engineers/Assistant Engineers cannot raise any grievance merely because of the misplaced apprehension that their probability of promotion or chance of promotion has been curtailed - Grant of seniority with retrospective effect is concerned, as per judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, without any statutory provision or conscious administrative decision, seniority cannot be assigned from a back date or a date anterior to a date when an employee was born in cadre - Assistant Engineer and grant of seniority with retrospective effect, in our considered opinion, was brought in accordance with law, while following due procedure – Court do not see any infirmity or irregularity in process - Amendment does not smack of bias or reeks favouritism - Writ petitions are dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Mehta, J.
1. These writ petitions involve challenge to the decision of the respondent No. 1 and 2 whereby the posts of Feeder Managers have been merged with the posts of Assistant Engineers of respondent Electricity Companies and a corresponding amendment has been introduced giving them seniority below the Assistant Engineers, appointed in 2010-11 and 2011-12, as the case may be.
2. The first writ petition (SBCWP No. 13772/2016) has been filed by two petitioners; petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Junior Engineer on 23.11.1991, whereas petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 18.11.1997. They were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (E&M) against the vacancies of the year 2011-12 and 2013-14 respectively.
3. The second writ petition being SBCWP No. 13775/2016 (RSEB Engineers Association), was initially filed at Jaipur Bench, but later has been transferred to the Principal Seat by order dated 28.9.2016, passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. This writ petition also raises a somewhat similar grievance. As the basic grievance namely, merging the post with or converting the post of Feeder Manager to Assistant Engineer is common, both the writ petitions are being disposed of conjointly.
4. The petitioners of the first writ petition have challenged the decision of the Coordination Committee dated 30.10.2015; the subsequent decision dated 10.05.2017 taken by the Reconstituted Coordination Committee and the consequential orders dated 14.08.2017 and 28.08.2017 and identical orders said to have been issued by different Nigams. Whereas the second writ petition lays challenge to the resolution dated 30.10.2015 adopted by the Coordination Committee.
5. It may be noted that earlier, the terms and conditions of the services of the employees of the respondent-Nigam were governed by RSEB Service of Engineers (Recruitment, Promotion & Seniority) Regulation, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations of 1969"), which has later been substituted by JVVNL Engineers Service Regulation, 2016 (hereinafter referred as "Regulations of 2016"). Recruitment in the service is governed by Regulation No. 6 of the Regulations of 2016 and according to the Schedule-I appended with the Regulations of 2016, recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer (E&M Civil) can be made by both the processes i.e. direct recruitment as well as promotion from the post of Junior Engineers.
6. It may be noted that 50% posts of the Assistant Engineer (Electrical) are required to be filled in by direct recruitment (2/3rd from amongst open market and remaining 1/3rd from the existing Junior Engineers, working in the respondent-Nigam), while remaining 50% posts are meant to be filled in by promotion.
7. A new cadre of Feeder Manager came to be introduced in the service regulations in order to cater to the requirement of Feeder Renovation Programme taken by various Discoms. The minutes of the meeting dated 10.07.2007 of the Board of Directors of the respondent-Discom reveals that duties and responsibilities of Feeder Managers were to carry out energy audit of the feeders and to monitor, collect and compile the details of execution.
8. The posts of Feeder Manager were filled in through the process of direct recruitment, which took place in July, 2007 and September 2008, whereafter no recruitment to the post of Feeder Manager was made by the respondents and the post of Feeder Manager was kept as a dying cadre.
9. While admitting that the grade pay and pay-scale of Feeder Manager was equivalent to Assistant Engineer (Electric), the petitioners have pleaded that since inception, no promotional avenue was provided to the Feeder Managers. It has been asserted that all the Feeder Managers, who were recruited directly from open market and those who were already working as Junior Engineers in various companies of the respondents vied in the recruitment process, accepted the appoin
Anirudhsinhji Jadeja & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (1995) 5 SCC 302
Council of Scientific & Industrial Research & Anr. v. K.G.S. Bhatt & Anr.
Dhole Govind Sahebrao & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Indian Airlines Officers' Association v. Indian Airlines Ltd. & Ors.
J. Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.
R.S. Makashi & Ors. v. I.M. Menon & Ors.
Raghunath Prasad Singh v. Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar & Ors.
Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Roshan Lal Saini v. Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur & Ors.
S.P. Shiv Prasad Pipal v. Union of India & Ors.
S.P. Shivprasad Pipal v. Union of India & Ors.
State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni & Ors.
State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni & Ors.
State of Maharashtra v. Purshottam & Ors.
State of Sikkim v. Adup Tshering Bhutia & Ors.
State of Tripura & Ors. v. K.K. Roy
Union of India (UOI) & Ors. v. S.L. Dutta & Ors.
Union of India v. Anil Kumar & Ors.
Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India & Ors.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.