Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil) Recruitment Regulations, 1965: Time bound benefit – PSEB passed an office order on 19.07.1989 for regular employees introducing a scheme to allow a time bound benefit of higher scale on their completion of 9/16 years of services – On 29.03.1991, another office order was passed upgrading 20% of the cadre posts of Junior Engineer-II (Civil) in the scale of Rs.1640/3200 (revised) to that of Junior Engineer-I (Civil) in the scale of 1800/3500 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 – Thereafter, in continuation, consolidation and supersession of orders dated 19.07.1989 and 29.03.1991, the PSEB issued office order dated 23.04.1990 introducing scheme to allow “time bound benefit of promotional scales” after completion of 9/16 years of regular service in PSEB w.e.f. 01.01.1986 subject to certain conditions – Respondents (original petitioners) in the writ petition prayed for granting the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4250 with initial start of Rs. 2400/- per month with effect from 01.01.1986 and further to grant the pay scale of Rs. 3000-5600 on completion of 16 years of their services on the basis of office orders dated 19.07.1989, 29.03.1990 and 23.04.1990, however made no challenge to office order dated 29.03.1990 in the petition, which was held to be unenforceable by the High Court on the ground that it was not published in the Gazette as required under s.79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 – Contention raised by the respondents was that office order dated 29.03.1990 was issued in the disguise of upgrading the respondents posts, which in fact was issued for creating new posts of promotion, so as to deprive the respondents the benefit of office order dated 23.04.1990; that issuance of such order was changing the conditions of service of the respondents and, therefore, the same was required to be published in the gazette as required under s.79 of the 1948 Act – Held: Office order dated 29.03.1990, which was issued only for upgrading 20% of the posts of Junior Engineer-II (Civil), in the higher pay scale, could neither be construed as creating new posts of promotion nor could it be construed as changing the conditions of service of the Junior Engineers (Civil) – The said upgradation merely conferred a financial benefit by raising the pay scale of the Junior Engineers (Civil), without there being advancement to a higher position, and without there being change in the duties and responsibilities – There was also nothing on record to suggest that the Junior Engineers had to undergo any process of selection for getting the benefit of the said office order – Hence, it could not be said that the PSEB had robbed the respondents of their legitimate right of promotion by issuing the said office order or that such order could not have been issued without corresponding amendment in the Regulations – In view of Regulation 17 of the said Regulations, the PSEB was authorised to fix the scales of pay of the posts specified therein including that of the Junior Engineers, from time to time – PSEB having already framed the Regulations of 1965 in exercise of powers conferred under s.79(c) of the Act, and the Regulations having also been published in the Official Gazette, there was no need for the PSEB to notify office order dated 29.03.1990 – An employee could be said to be suffering from stagnation as per the office order dated 23.04.1990 only if he possessed the requisite qualification for the next higher post and was unable to get the higher post on account of non availability of such post – Thus, the claim of the respondents based on office order dated 23.04.1990, for getting the pay scale of the next higher post of Assistant Engineer i.e. Rs. 2200-4250 on the completion of 9 years of their service and the pay scale of another next higher post of the Executive Engineer i.e. Rs. 3000-5600 on the completion of 16 years of their service, without assuming the responsibilities of the said promotional posts, was misconceived. Service law: Upgradation and Promotion – Difference between – Held: There is a vast difference between the upgradation and the promotion – Ordinarily upgradation of a post would involve transfer of a post from lower to higher grade and placement of an incumbent of that post in the higher grade – Such placement would not involve any selection process to be followed, but would merely confer a financial benefit by raising the scale of pay of the post – However, in case of promotion, there would be an advancement to a higher position or rank along with an advancement to a higher grade – Therefore, the word “promotion” would mean advancement or preferment in honour, dignity, rank and grade.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It cannot be gainsaid that there is a vast difference between the upgradation and the promotion. Ordinarily upgradation of a post would involve transfer of a post from lower to higher grade and placement of an incumbent of that post in the higher grade. Such placement would not involve any selection process to be followed, but would merely confer a financial benefit by raising the scale of pay of the post. However, in case of promotion, there would be an advancement to a higher position or rank along with an advancement to a higher grade. Therefore, the word “promotion” would mean advancement or preferment in honour, dignity, rank and grade. [Para 12][558-E-F] Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. R. Santhakumari Velusamy and Ors. (2021) 9 SCC 510 – relied on.
2. The office order dated 29.03.1990, which was issued only for upgrading 20% of the posts of Junior Engineer-II (Civil), in the higher pay scale, could neither be construed as creating new posts of promotion nor could it be construed as changing the conditions of service of the Junior Engineers (Civil). The said upgradation merely conferred a financial benefit by raising the pay scale of the Junior Engineers (Civil), without there being advancement to a higher position, and without there being change in the duties and responsibilities. There was also nothing on record to suggest that the Junior Engineers had to undergo any process of selection for getting the benefit of the said office order. Hence, it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that the PSEB had robbed the respondents of their legitimate right of promotion by issuing the said office order or that such order could not have been issued without corresponding amendment in the Regulations, as held by the High Court. [Para 13][559-F-H; 560A]
3. The PSEB has already framed the Regulations 1965 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of Section 79 of the said Act, and the said Regulations have been notified in the Official Gazette. Regulation 17 of the said Regulations states that the members of the service will be entitled to such scale of pay as may be authorised by the Board from time to time. Thus, in view of Regulation 17 of the said Regulations, the PSEB was authorised to fix the scales of pay of the posts specified therein including that of the Junior Engineers, from time to time. Even otherwise it is well settled proposition of law that in absence of any Rules or Regulations governing the service conditions of the employees, the Electricity Board has power to issue administrative orders. [Para 14][560-B-D]
Sohan Singh Sodhi v. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala (2007) 5 SCC 528 : [2007] 6 SCR 250; Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors. v. Gurmail Singh (2008)
7 SCC 245 : [2008] 6 SCR 868 – relied on.
4. In the instant case, apart from the fact that the respondents had not challenged the validity of the said office order dated 29.03.1990 in the writ petition on the ground that it was not notified as per Section 79 of the said Act, the PSEB having already framed the Regulations of 1965 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 79(c) of the said Act, and the said Regulations having also been published in the Official Gazette, there was no need for the PSEB to notify the office order dated 29.03.1990 which pertained to the upgradation of 20% of the posts of Junior Engineer-II (Civil), as was permissible under Regulation
17 of the said Regulations. [Para 16][561-H; 562-A-B]
Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Krishan Kumar Vij and Anr. (2010) 8 SCC 701 : [2010] 10 SCR 462 – relied on.
5. An employee could be said to be suffering from stagnation as per the office order dated 23.04.1990 only if he possessed the requisite qualification for the next higher post and was unable to get the higher post on account of non availability of such post. Thus, the claim of the respondents based on the office order dated 23.04.1990, for getting the pay scale of the next higher post of Assistant Engineer i.e. Rs. 2200-4250 on the completion of 9 years of their service and the pay scale of another next higher post of the Executive Engineer i.e. Rs. 3000-5600 on the completion of 16 years of their service, without assuming the responsibilities of the said promotional posts, was thoroughly misconceived. What they were entitled to, as per the scheme to alleviate the stagnation as contained in the office order dated 23.04.1990, was the time bound promotional/devised promotional scale as indicated in the Schedule drawn up by the Board. The said Schedule had specified the first time bound scale to be allowed after 9 years of service as Rs. 1800-3500, and the second time bound scale to be allowed after 16 years of service as 22004250 for the post of Junior Engineer Grade-II (Civil), subject to the pre-conditions mentioned therein. The same having already been granted to the respondents, the pay scales as claimed by the respondents in the writ petition could not have been granted by the High Court. [Paras 18, 20][563-D, G-H; 564-A-C]
Union of India and Ors. v. M.V. Mohanan Nair (2020)
5 SCC 421 – relied on.
State of Haryana Etc. v. Shamsher Jang Bahadur Etc. (1972) 2 SCC 188 : [1973] 1 SCR 249; Mohammad
Shujat Ali and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1975)
3 SCC 76 : [1975] 1 SCR 449 – referred to.
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.