Dismissed

Hpseb Ltd. and Anr. v. Anil Kumar and Anr.

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Aug 2022LPA/94/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed Letters Patent Appeals against the Single Judge’s order which offered appointments to petitioners in a dispute with the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board. The HC dismissed the appeals, holding that the impugned order was passed based on the Board’s submissions and no ground for interference existed, distinguishing a coordinate bench’s order.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.

Hpseb Ltd. and Anr. Vs Anil Kumar and Anr. — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 2^nd DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA, & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA

¶5

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.94 OF 2022 ALONGWITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.114 OF 2022

¶6

Between:-

¶7

LPA NO.94 OF 2022

¶8

1. THE HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, VIDYUT BHAWAN, SHIMLA-171004, THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL).

¶9

2. THE HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED NAHAN, THROUGH SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION CIRCLE, NAHAN, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, H.P.

¶10

….APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY MR. TARA SINGH CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND

¶13

ANIL KUMAR, SON OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHANDNI, POST OFFICE BHAROG BANERI, TEHSIL KAMROO, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, H.P.

¶14

….RESPONDENT

¶15

¶16

(BY MR. PRAVEEN CHANDEL, ADVOCATE)

¶17

LPA NO.114 OF 2022

¶18

1. THE HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, VIDYUT BHAWAN, SHIMLA-171004, THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL).

¶19

2. THE HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED NAHAN, THROUGH SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION CIRCLE, NAHAN, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, H.P.

¶20

….APPELLANTS

¶21

(BY MR. TARA SINGH CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE) AND

¶22

PREM DUTT, SON OF SH. HUKMI RAM, RESIDENT OF BORAR (177), KOTIBHUNCH, SIRMOUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.

¶23

….RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY MR. PRAVEEN CHANDEL, ADVOCATE)

¶25

__________________________________________________

¶26

¶27

These Letters Patent Appeals coming on for admission this day, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sabina, delivered the following:

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

Appellants have filed these Letters Patent Appeals, challenging the order dated 29.11.2021, passed by the learned

¶30

Single Judge.

¶31

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file, carefully.

¶32

Paras 5 & 6 of the impugned order dated 29.11.2021, read as under:-

¶33

“5. Today, Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned Counsel for the respondent-Board has informed the Court that he has instructions to state that in case the petitioners are offered appointment against the post of T/Mate in their respective categories, the private respondents can also be adjusted as there are posts available in the respective categories. He further states that this Court may observe that this concession is being given in the peculiar facts of this case and the same shall not be treated as a precedent.

¶34

¶35

6. Taking into consideration the fair stand, which has been taken by learned Counsel for the respondent-Board, these writ petitions are allowed/disposed of with the direction that the petitioners be offered appointment against the post of Junior T/Mate in their respective categories as from the date when persons similarly situated as them were offered appointment. Seniority be conferred upon them in terms of their merit in their respective categories. As from that date the benefits recurring to them shall be deemed to be notional uptill the date the petitioners are offered appointment which should not be later than 15 days from today. The direction issued by this Court of granting appointment to the petitioners shall not be construed as if a direction has been passed by this Court to set aside the appointment of the private respondent. In terms of the statement, which has been made on behalf of the respondentBoard by learned Counsel, said respondents be adjusted in their respective categories and concession given by the Board in this particular

¶36

¶37

case is ordered not to be treated as a precedent.

¶38

The petitions stand disposed of in

¶39

above terms, as also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.”

¶40

Thus, a perusal of the above paragraphs reveal that

¶41

the impugned order has been passed in terms of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-Board.

¶42

Learned counsel for the appellant-Board has submitted that, in a similar matter, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, on 25.03.2021, had passed a different order in CWP No.1499 of 2021, titled Mandeep Singh versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and others.

¶43

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the above submission put-forth by learned counsel for the appellant-Board and has submitted that the impugned order dated 29.11.2021 has been passed in terms of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-

¶44

Board. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶45

Order dated 25.03.2021, passed in CWP No.1499

¶46

of 2021, reads as under:-

¶47

¶48

“By way of present petition, the petitioner has made a very innocuous prayer for declaration of result of interview held on 21.12.2020 for the post of Junior T Mate/Junior Helper (Sub-station) and issue him appointment letter, if eligible/selected. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents is not averse to the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to declare the result of the post of Junior T Mate and Junior Helper (Substation) on contract basis held on 21.12.2020, and in the event of petitioner being selected, issue him offer of appointment to the post in question, forthwith.”

¶49

After going through the order dated 25.03.2021, we

¶50

are of the opinion that so far as the impugned order dated 29.11.2021 is concerned, the same has been passed by learned Single Judge in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-Board. Hence, the order dated 25.03.2021 fails to advance the case of the appellantBoard. Since the impugned order dated 29.11.2021, passed by learned Single Judge in CWPs No.1405 and 1406 of 2021,

¶51

¶52

has been passed in terms of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-Board, no ground for interference is made out.

¶53

Dismissed.

¶54

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶55

( Sabina )

¶56

Judge

¶57

August 02, 2022 (Yashwant)

¶58

( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge

Hpseb Ltd. and Anr. v. Anil Kumar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hpseb Ltd. and Anr. v. Anil Kumar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dushyant and Anr. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Yashwant Singh Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Jeet Ram Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Walia Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Hpseb Ltd. and Anr. Vs Prem Dutt and Anr.