Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil) Regulations, 1965 – Appellants, promoted from the post of Junior Engineer, claimed time bound promotional scale while working as Assistant Engineers – Allowed by Single Judge – Order set aside – On appeal, held: Claim of the appellants was for time bound promotional scale after completion of 9-16 years’ service only at par with two juniors to them in the category of Assistant Engineer (Civil) who were appointed by way of direct recruitment – Appellants categorically admitted that the said persons were appointed by way of direct recruitment – While appellants were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in their term as per their seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineer – Promotee employees are entitled to time bound promotion scale in terms of the First Circular only – Second Circular which was issued to grant time bound promotional scale to directly recruited Assistant Engineers would not apply to the appellants as they are instead covered by First Circular – No error in the order passed by High Court.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The appellants were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers under Regulation 7(a)(ii) read with Regulation 10 of the Civil Regulations. Shri Kirpal Singh Mangat and Shri Raj Kumar Garg, who were junior to the appellants in the category of Assistant Engineer (Civil) were appointed by way of direct recruitment to such posts on the basis of their qualifications under Regulation 7(a)(i) of the Civil Regulations. Two sets of circulars were issued by the Punjab State Electricity Board for grant of time bound promotional scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The circular dated 23.04.1990 is the First Circular. Circular dated 24.05.1990 is the Second Circular. The Second Circular was issued to grant time bound promotional scale to directly recruited Assistant Engineers. However, the promoted employees were said to be entitled to time bound promotional scale as per the First Circular itself. The said Second Circular was issued to equally apply to the Civil and Electrical Branch of the Board. The Note to the said Circular mentions that the Circular has been issued under the Civil and Electrical Regulations. The claim of the appellants was based upon the First Circular for 9/16 years’ time bound promotion scale though the appellants have referred to the Second Circular in para 18 of the writ petition. The Second Circular was not even annexed with the writ petition, however the same has been annexed by two other appellants. There is no challenge to the legality and validity of the Second Circular. Still further, the appellants have never claimed that there should be equal pay being members of the same cadre. The claim of the appellants was for time bound promotional scale after completion of 9-16 years’ service only at par with Kirpal Singh Mangat and Raj Kumar Garg. The appellants were promoted within 9 or 16 years from their initial appointment, therefore, they are not entitled to time bound promotional scale. Kirpal Singh Mangat and Raj Kumar Garg were appointed by direct recruitment as Assistant Engineer (Civil), whereas the appellants have been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). Hence, the Second Circular would not be applicable to them. The promotee employees are entitled to time bound promotion scale in terms of the First Circular only. Hence, the appellants are not entitled to claim any parity with Kirpal Singh Mangat and Raj Kumar Garg. Some other employees have been granted benefit by virtue of the orders passed by the High Court. However, the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments run counter to the subsequent judgment of this Court in Krishan Kumar Vij. The Special Leave Petition in many of these cases were dismissed but such dismissals would not be a binding precedent for this Court. The dismissal of special leave petitions is of no consequence on the question of law. [Paras 5-9, 16-18][971-F; 972-A, G; 976-H; 977-A-B; 979-B-H]
1.2 The appellants being only Diploma holders were promoted under Regulation 7(a)(ii) read with Regulation 10.4 of the Regulations. They had the opportunity to compete for direct recruitment after 12 years of service, which they never availed or remained unsuccessful. The appellants would have been entitled to claim parity with Kripal Singh Mangat and Raj Kumar Garg only if they were qualified and promoted against the posts reserved for those employees by direct recruitment. Consequently, the appellants cannot claim time bound promotion after completion of 9/16 years at par with Kirpal Singh Mangat and Raj Kumar Garg. It has been categorically admitted by the appellants that the said persons were appointed by way of direct recruitment under Regulation 7(a)(i) as provided under Regulation 9 of the Regulations. The appellants, on the contrary, have been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in their term as per their seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineer. Thus, Second Circular which would be applicable to Kirpal Singh Mangat and Raj Kumar Garg would not apply to the appellants as they are instead covered by the First Circular. In terms of the First and Second Circulars, the employees of the Board who have not earned promotion within 9 years from their initial recruitment are entitled to time bound promotional scale. If they have been promoted within the initial 9 years, the next promotion cannot be granted to them after completion of 3 years. [Paras 20-22][981F-H; 982-A-D]
1.3 Therefore, the High Court in the impugned judgment was correct in law holding that in view of the judgment in Krishan Kumar Vij, the appellants are not entitled to time bound promotional scale on the basis of parity in the other cases. In view of the said facts, no error is found in the order passed by the High Court which may warrant any interference of this Court. [Paras 23, 25][982-D-F]
Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Rajinder Singh Patpatia and Anr. (2002) 1 Recent Service Judgments 32; Krishan Kumar Vij v. State of Punjab (Writ Petition No. 19306 of 2003) – referred to.
Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Krishan Kumar Vij & Anr. (2010) 8 SCC 701 [2010] 10 SCR 462;
ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANOTHER [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
Kunhayammed & Ors v. State Of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359:[2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.