38 years after amputation, HC restores lineman's promotion from 1988; orders arrears with 6% interest in 4 months

Nearly four decades after a lineman lost his leg while repairing an electric pole and was denied the very promotion offered to him during treatment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has admonished the power utility for “discriminating and ignoring” him in a “pick and choose manner”. Justice Namit Kumar held the action “wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the principles of equality and fairness enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”

Allowing the regular second appeal filed in 1998, Justice Namit Kumar directed the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and other respondents to treat the employee as Assistant Lineman (ALM) on regular basis with effect from August 16, 1988 — the date on which he was offered appointment — and to grant all consequential benefits, including arrears with 6 per cent interest per annum. The retirement and ex-gratia benefits were ordered to be released to the legal representatives within four months of receipt of the certified copy.

The court traced the chronology. The employee joined as a daily wager in May 1980, was promoted as T-mate in December 1982, and on April 21, 1988, suffered an accident during duty leading to amputation of his left leg. While under treatment at PGI, he received an offer dated August 16, 1988, for appointment as ALM on regular basis. Because of hospitalisation, he could not join; the offer was withdrawn on September 27, 1988.

He rejoined duty on April 16, 1989. In 1992, he was appointed as T-mate on work-charge basis. Meanwhile, several juniors — including employees with 80% to 110% disability — were promoted as ALMs. The trial court decreed his suit on February 5, 1997. The first appellate court reversed it. The High Court has now restored the trial court’s findings.

Justice Namit Kumar recorded it was “an admitted position” that similarly situated juniors were promoted, while the appellant’s offer was withdrawn “without assigning any reasons.” Terming the withdrawal an “unsubstantial act”, the court held: “Such an unsubstantial act of the respondents-department in discriminating the plaintiff is wholly unjustified and cannot be sustained by any stretch of imagination.” It added the department had “failed to place on record any plausible justification for treating the appellant-plaintiff differently from other similarly situated employees.”

The employee died on December 19, 2009, having remained a work-charge T-mate. His wife also passed away during pendency. Justice Namit Kumar directed that he be treated as ALM on regular basis with effect from August 16, 1988, “notionally” and be held entitled to “all the retiral benefits treating him to be a regular employee.”

It further ordered consideration of ex-gratia benefits under the policy dated August 1, 2006 — the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 — with payment to the legal representatives within four months.