Ram Chand Dahiya vs DHBVN

Jaswant Singh, J.—CM No. 9302/2014 is allowed and replication alongwith Annexures P-35 to P-41 is taken on record.

Main Case.

Petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.5.2012 from the post of Junior Engineer-I with the respondent Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (for short DHBVN).

By filing the present writ petition he is primarily seeking (i) the benefit of service rendered by him in the Indian Air Force from 9.1.1971 to 31.1.1992 i.e. during the second Emergency period from 3.12.1971 to 3.7.1977 and (ii) for grant of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer against 121/2% quota reserved for the in-service engineering subordinates in possession of AMIE/BE Degrees as per Regulation 9(1)(b)(ii) of Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Electrical) Recruitment Regulations, 1965 (as applicable and amended by State of Haryana).

It is averred that the petitioner was enlisted in the Indian Air Force as a Technician on 9.1.1971 and he was retired w.e.f. 31.1.1992. He joined the services of erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board (successor DHBVN) on 27.4.1993 as Junior Engineer (Mechanical). He superannuated on 31.5.2012. Petitioner vide letter dated 24.2.2012 (P-18) made a representation for counting of military service during the operation of second National Emergency from 3.12.1971 to 3.7.1977 under the Punjab Government National Emergency Concession Rules, 1965 (for short 1965 Rules). He is also stated to have made a representation on 8.5.2012 (P-20) for the post of Assistant Engineer after giving him the benefit of seniority under the 1965 Rules and by treating his Diploma in Engineering secured by him during his employment with Indian Air Force to be equivalent to a Degree in Engineering and thereafter promote him w.e.f. his junior have been promoted. Petitioner is stated to have filed CWP No. 10993/2012 which was disposed of on 31.5.2012 with a direction to respondent-DHBVN to treat the petition as representation and pass a speaking order. In compliance of the said direction impugned order dated 17.7.2012 (P-34) has been passed which is subject matter of the challenge in the present writ petition.

Having heard learned counsel at length this Court finds that the present writ petition is totally devoid of any merit.

As regards the claim of benefit of the period of second National Emergency from 3.12.1971 to 3.7.1977 towards increment, seniority etc. under the 1965 Rules is concerned, it is apparent that the same is covered by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Rajender Kumar S.I. Vs. The State of Haryana and Others, wherein the issue raised in the present petition was specifically considered and it was held that the benefit under the 1965 Rules was limited to the period of first Emergency from 26.10.1962 till 10.1.1968 and not for the second Emergency period commencing w.e.f. 3.12.1971 till its currency. Still further Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case reported as Dhan Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, has specifically held that even the benefit of first Emergency w.e.f. 26.10.1962 to 10.1.1968 was available only to those persons who had been commissioned during the Emergency. Concededly the petitioner had been commissioned prior to the declaration of the second Emergency. Thus, on both counts the matter is squarely covered against the petitioner.

As regards claim of the petitioner for his promotion as Assistant Engineer in the relevant quota with effect from his alleged juniors namely Govind Ram, Brij Mohan, Hitesh Kumar and Sanjay Kumar were promoted, is concerned it is apparent that the alleged juniors were promoted vide orders dated 31.03.2010 and 5.1.2011. The said orders were not impugned in the main writ petition. However, those have been sought to be placed on record as Annexures P-35 and P-36 by way of CM No. 9302/2014 seeking to place on record replication. Without going into merits and demerits of the same it is apparent that the said orders were never challenged or any grievance made till the filing of previous writ petition bearing CWP No. 10993/2012 i.e. much beyond period of 11/2 years. It is settled principle of law that challenge to the selection and promotions has to be made by the candidates within a period of six months or at the most one year as settled by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Thus the petition on that count has to fail on the principle of delay and laches. No judgment to the contrary has been shown by the counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing.

In view of the above, present writ petition stands dismissed.