HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE MANOJ KUMAR TI WARI

Writ Petition Service Single No. 337 of 2025

17 November, 2025

Dariyab Singh Negi --Petitioner

Versus

Managing Director, Uttarakhand

Power Corporation Ltd. & others. --Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Anil K. Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4.

--------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT

Respondent nos. 5 & 6 were directed to be

served personally as well as by Registered Post. As per office report, both the respondents are duly served,

however, there is no one to represent them.

2. Petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant, Grade-III on daily wages w.e.f. 17.10.1984 and he was regularized on the post of Office Assistant, Grade-III w.e.f. 1.4.1988. He was promoted to the higher post i.e. Office Assistant, Grade-II w.e.f. 30.01.2006; he was thereafter promoted as Office Superintendent, Grade-II w.e.f. 7.1.2021; and he was lastly promoted as Office Superintendent, Grade-I w.e.f. 5.4.2023. Petitioner is aggrieved by promotion given to respondent no. 5 to the post of Office Superintendent,

Special Grade, vide order dated 10.10.2024.

3. Petitioner contends that respondent no. 5 was appointed on the induction level post of Office Assistant, Grade-III only on 20.6.1989; while, petitioner was appointed on the said post w.e.f. 1.4.1988, therefore, respondent no. 5 is junior to him. He submits that respondent no. 5 belongs to Scheduled Tribe category and he was given accelerated promotion against reserved vacancies and he became Office Superintendent, Grade-I on 27.4.2012, however, after being promoted as Office Superintendent, Grade-I, vide order dated 5.4.2023, petitioner regained seniority, as it was in the feeding cadre by virtue of Rule 6 of U.P. State Electricity Board Servants Seniority Regulations, 1998.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after promotion of the petitioner as Office Superintendent, Grade-I, vide order dated 5.4.2023, it was incumbent upon the competent authority to re- determine the inter-se seniority of petitioner vis-à-vis respondent no. 5. He submits that although a tentative seniority list of Office Superintendent, Grade-I was issued on 5.6.2024, however, in that list name of respondent no. 5 was altogether missing; petitioner filed objection and referred to the principle of catching up, incorporated in Regulation 6 of the Seniority Regulations, 1998, however, without taking decision on the objections and without finalising the inter-se seniority of petitioner and respondent no. 5, respondent no. 5 was promoted as Office Superintendent, Special Grade, vide order dated

10.10.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 5 was promoted with undue haste without determining his inter-se seniority with the petitioner.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4. There is nothing to indicate in the counter affidavit that respondent no. 5 was senior to petitioner in the induction level post.

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 4 concedes that petitioner and respondent no. 5, both were initially appointed as Office Assistant, Grade-III and respondent no. 5 was junior to the petitioner in the induction level post.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent no. 5 was given accelerated promotions against reserved vacancies, as he belong to Scheduled Tribe community, however, once petitioner is promoted as Office Superintendent, Grade-I on 5.4.2023, he would catch up respondent no. 5, even though he was promoted as Office Superintendent, Grade-I in 2012 and by virtue of Regulation 6, petitioner would regain seniority over respondent no. 5, as he was senior to him on the induction level post of Office Assistant, Grade-III. He submits that Regulation 9(1) of the Seniority Regulations, 1998 provides that a tentative seniority