High court overturns ‘illegal promotions’ in Haryana Vidyut Nigam

The appeal arose from a 2016 order by a single judge who had directed HVPNL to finalise its revised Recruitment and Promotion Policy, without addressing the appellants’ core grievance. Saini and Singh, both part of the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board (HSEB), contended that their rightful claim to promotion under the 50 per cent quota for the post of Divisional Accountant had been ignored. They pointed out that ministerial cadre employees, including Ashwani Chauhan and Pooja Lathwal, were wrongly promoted despite not belonging to the accounts wing, an action they said violated the Recruitment and Promotion Policy of HVPNL’s Audit & Accounts Wing.

The high court bench examined Clause 4.3 of the policy, which stipulates that the Divisional Accountant post must be filled from among qualified Accountants, or in their absence, from Junior Accountants and Accounts Clerks who have cleared the departmental examination. The court noted that Chauhan and Lathwal, who remained in the ministerial cadre until their promotions in 2012 and 2014, did not meet this criterion and were therefore ineligible.

The bench criticised HVPNL for ignoring cadre boundaries and extending undue benefits to ministerial staff. “The promotions granted to Ashwani Chauhan and Pooja Lathwal are unsustainable in the eyes of law,” the court held, setting aside their appointments and ordering HVPNL to conduct a fresh promotion process.

The court further directed that Saini and Singh be considered for promotion based on their eligibility as of the years 2012 and 2014, with all consequential benefits, including seniority and salary arrears, to be granted from the date of the original writ petition, if found eligible.

In a rare move, the court also called for disciplinary proceedings against the officer responsible for approving the promotions in violation of the policy. It left open the possibility of recovering the salaries paid to the ineligible appointees.

Emphasising the need for transparency and fairness in promotions, the bench said the case highlights the importance of respecting cadre-specific policies and protecting the rights of qualified employees.