***** Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Another

***** vs Punjab State Electricity Board and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Apr 23, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1138469

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1138469
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Apr 23, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

*****

Respondent

Punjab State Electricity Board and Another

Excerpt

.....no.10818 of 1998) mr. vishal singh chauhan, advocate mr. nilesh bhardwaj, deputy advocate general, punjab **** g.s.sandhawalia, j.(oral).1. this order shall dispose of civil writ petitions no.4057 of 1997 and 10818 of 1998 as common question of facts and law are involved in both these petitions. however, for dictating the order, the facts have been taken from civil writ petition no.4057 of 1997.2. the present writ petition was admitted and ordered to be heard along with civil writ petition no.13630 of 1993-kasturi lal and others vs. punjab state electricity board and others. kumar pardeep 2014.04.28 13:12 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh cwp no.4057 of 1997 -2- **** 2. the said writ petition has been decided on 30.11.2009 and it was held by this court that the appointment of the employees by the executive engineer of the irrigation department were as board employees and their services were also ordered to be governed by the board rules and regulations and not that of the government. the option which was being asked for fresh appointment was ordered to be quashed. the relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- “the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that executive engineer, of irrigation department, had appointed the petitioners, therefore, they are to be treated as the employees of the irrigation department, on the face of it is mis-conceived. the order of appointment clearly shows that the petitioners were appointed as board employees and their services were also ordered to be governed by the board rules and regulations and not that of government. the appointment by executive engineer of irrigation department was justified in view of the order annexure p-3, as specific order was passed by the board giving powers of the officers of the board to the officers posted to the hydel projects. the project was being financed by the pseb. the petitioners throughout had been.....

Full Judgment

CWP No.4057 of 1997 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH1 CWP No.4057 of 1997. Date of decision:

23. 04.2014 Natha Singh and others ...Petitioners Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and another ...Respondents 2. CWP No.10818 of 1998. Dilbag Singh ...Petitioner Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA ***** Present: Mr. J.S.Manipur, Advocate for the petitioners (in Civil Writ Petition No.4057 of 1997). Mr. Vimal Singh, Advocate for Mr. S.P.Laler, Advocate for the petitioner (in Civil Writ Petition No.10818 of 1998) Mr. Vishal Singh Chauhan, Advocate Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab **** G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

(Oral).

1. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No.4057 of 1997 and 10818 of 1998 as common question of facts and law are involved in both these petitions. However, for dictating the order, the facts have been taken from Civil Writ Petition No.4057 of 1997.

2. The present writ petition was admitted and ordered to be heard along with Civil Writ Petition No.13630 of 1993-Kasturi Lal and others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others. Kumar Pardeep 2014.04.28 13:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.4057 of 1997 -2- **** 2. The said writ petition has been decided on 30.11.2009 and it was held by this Court that the appointment of the employees by the Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Department were as board employees and their services were also ordered to be governed by the Board rules and regulations and not that of the Government. The option which was being asked for fresh appointment was ordered to be quashed. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- “The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that Executive Engineer, of Irrigation Department, had appointed the petitioners, therefore, they are to be treated as the employees of the Irrigation Department, on the face of it is mis-conceived. The order of appointment clearly shows that the petitioners were appointed as board employees and their services were also ordered to be governed by the board rules and regulations and not that of Government. The appointment by Executive Engineer of Irrigation Department was justified in view of the order Annexure P-3, as specific order was passed by the board giving powers of the officers of the board to the officers posted to the hydel projects. The project was being financed by the PSEB. The petitioners throughout had been paid by the Punjab State Electricity Board, therefore, it cannot be said that petitioners were employees of the State Government, to ask them to give option of fresh appointment. The judgment of the Kumar Pardeep 2014.04.28 13:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.4057 of 1997 -3- **** Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Mehanga Ram and others (supra) also has no application to the case, as the petitioners were not surplus employees of State Government. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. The letter of option given to the petitioners to opt for fresh appointment is ordered to be quashed. No costs.”. 3. In the present petitions the petitioners are seeking quashing of order dated 25.2.1997, whereby the case of the petitioners for promotion was deferred on the ground that they were appointed by the Irrigation Department. The relief in the present petitions is also for treating the petitioners as employees of the Board and to consider their case for the post of Lower Division Clerk.

4. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed in view of the observations made by this Court in Kasturi Lal's case (supra). The petitioners will be entitled for the benefits which will accrue to them on account of the fact that they are entitled to be treated as Board employees.

5. A photocopy of this order be placed on the record of connected case file. 23.04.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) Pka JUDGE Kumar Pardeep 2014.04.28 13:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2014 Same Parties ***** vs Punjab State Electricity Board and Another Same Subject Land Acquisition