Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals of Promotees Seeking Time Bound Promotional Scale Parity with Direct Recruits in Punjab State Electricity Board. Promotee Assistant Engineers Not Entitled to 9/16 Years' Time Bound Promotional Scale from Date of Initial Appointment as Junior Engineer; Counting of Service for Such Scale Commences from Date of Direct Recruitment to Higher Post.

  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeals arose from a common order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 09.04.2014, which allowed intra-court appeals by the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) and set aside the order of a learned Single Judge. The Single Judge had allowed writ petitions filed by the appellants, who were Assistant Engineers promoted from Junior Engineers, seeking the 9/16 years' time bound promotional scale. The appellants claimed parity with two direct recruit Assistant Engineers, Kirpal Singh Mangat and Raj Kumar Garg, who were junior to them but had been granted the time bound scale from the date of their direct recruitment. The appellants argued that their service as Junior Engineers should be counted for the time bound scale, as they had been promoted to Assistant Engineer. The PSEB contended that under the circulars dated 23.04.1990 and 24.05.1990, the time bound promotional scale is counted from the date of direct recruitment in the concerned cadre. For employees directly appointed to a higher post through open selection, service is counted from the date of joining that post. The appellants, being promotees, were not direct recruits and thus could not claim the benefit from an earlier date. The Supreme Court examined the relevant regulations and circulars. It noted that Regulation 7 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil) Regulations, 1965 provides three modes of recruitment: direct appointment (Regulation 9), promotion (Regulation 10), and transfer. The time bound promotional scheme, as per the circulars, clearly states that for the purpose of grant of time bound scale, counting of service commences from the date of direct recruitment. The Court held that the appellants, having been promoted under Regulation 10, are not entitled to count their prior service as Junior Engineers. The direct recruits, who were appointed through open selection, had their service counted from the date of such appointment. The Court found no discrimination or violation of Article 14, as the two categories are distinct. The appeals were dismissed, and the High Court's order was upheld.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Time Bound Promotional Scale - Counting of Service - The benefit of time bound promotional scale is available to an employee on completion of 9 and 16 years of regular service on a post, counted from the date of direct recruitment in the concerned cadre. For employees directly appointed to a higher post through open selection, counting of service commences from the date of joining that post by direct recruitment. (Paras 7-8)

B) Service Law - Promotion vs Direct Recruitment - Parity in Benefits - Promotees and direct recruits are treated differently for the purpose of time bound promotional scales. Promotees, who are appointed under Regulation 10, are not entitled to count their prior service as Junior Engineer for the 9/16 years' scale, as the scheme specifically provides that counting starts from the date of direct recruitment. (Paras 7-8, 10)

C) Interpretation of Regulations - Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil) Regulations, 1965 - Regulations 7, 9, 10 - The Regulations provide distinct modes of recruitment: direct appointment (Regulation 9) and promotion (Regulation 10). The time bound promotional scheme applies uniformly, and the circulars clarify that for direct recruits, service is counted from the date of direct recruitment. Promotees cannot claim the same benefit as direct recruits. (Paras 3-4, 7-8)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellants, who were promoted as Assistant Engineers under Regulation 10 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil) Regulations, 1965, are entitled to the 9/16 years' time bound promotional scale from the date of their initial appointment as Junior Engineers, or from the date of their promotion as Assistant Engineers.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the order of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Court held that the appellants, who were promoted as Assistant Engineers under Regulation 10, are not entitled to the 9/16 years' time bound promotional scale from the date of their initial appointment as Junior Engineers. The counting of service for such scale commences from the date of direct recruitment, as per the circulars dated 23.04.1990 and 24.05.1990.

Law Points

  • Time bound promotional scale
  • Direct recruitment
  • Promotion
  • Counting of service
  • Regular service
  • Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil) Regulations
  • 1965
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (SC) (12) 12

Civil Appeal No. 3837 of 2020 (@ SLP(C) No. 23877 of 2014) with Civil Appeal No. 3835 of 2020 (@ SLP Civil No. 22791 of 2014) and Civil Appeal No. 3836 of 2020 (@ SLP(C) No. 24195 of 2014)

2020-10-09

Hemant Gupta, J.

Inderjit Singh Sodhi and Others

The Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board and Another

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeals against a common order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing intra-court appeals by the Punjab State Electricity Board and setting aside the order of a learned Single Judge which had allowed writ petitions for grant of 9/16 years' time bound revised promotional scale.

Remedy Sought

The appellants sought the grant of 9/16 years' time bound promotional scale from the date of their initial appointment as Junior Engineers, claiming parity with direct recruit Assistant Engineers.

Filing Reason

The appellants were promoted as Assistant Engineers under Regulation 10 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil) Regulations, 1965, and claimed that they were entitled to the time bound promotional scale from the date of their initial appointment, similar to direct recruits.

Previous Decisions

The learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the writ petitions. The Division Bench of the same High Court, in intra-court appeals, set aside the Single Judge's order and dismissed the writ petitions.

Issues

Whether the appellants, who were promoted as Assistant Engineers under Regulation 10, are entitled to the 9/16 years' time bound promotional scale from the date of their initial appointment as Junior Engineers? Whether the circulars dated 23.04.1990 and 24.05.1990 provide for counting of service from the date of direct recruitment for the purpose of time bound promotional scale?

Submissions/Arguments

The appellants argued that they were entitled to the time bound promotional scale from the date of their initial appointment as Junior Engineers, as they were promoted to Assistant Engineer and should be treated at par with direct recruits. The respondents (PSEB) contended that under the circulars, the time bound promotional scale is counted from the date of direct recruitment in the concerned cadre. For employees directly appointed to a higher post through open selection, service is counted from the date of joining that post. The appellants, being promotees, are not entitled to count their prior service.

Ratio Decidendi

The time bound promotional scheme, as per the circulars dated 23.04.1990 and 24.05.1990, provides that the benefit of time bound promotional scale is available on completion of 9 and 16 years of regular service on a post, counted from the date of direct recruitment in the concerned cadre. For employees directly appointed to a higher post through open selection, counting of service commences from the date of joining that post by direct recruitment. Promotees, who are appointed under Regulation 10, are not direct recruits and cannot claim the benefit from an earlier date. The distinction between direct recruits and promotees is valid and does not violate Article 14.

Judgment Excerpts

The benefit of first time bound placement into promotional/devised promotional scale...would become available to an employee on completion of 9 (Nine) years of regular service on a post and the second time bound promotional / devised promotional scale would become available after completion of 16 (sixteen) years of service. If an employee already in the service of the Board is directly appointed to a higher post through open selection then for the purpose of grant of time bound promotional/devised promotional scale in that cadre counting of the period of service will commence from the date of joining the above post by direct recruitment.

Procedural History

The appellants filed writ petitions before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking the 9/16 years' time bound promotional scale. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions. The Punjab State Electricity Board filed intra-court appeals (Letters Patent Appeals) before the Division Bench of the same High Court. The Division Bench allowed the appeals and set aside the Single Judge's order. The appellants then filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, which were converted into Civil Appeals.

Acts & Sections

  • Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil) Regulations, 1965: Regulations 7, 9, 10
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals of Promotees Seeking Time Bound Promotional Scale Parity with Direct Recruits in Punjab State Electricity Board. Promotee Assistant Engineers Not Entitled to 9/16 Years' Time Bound Promotional Scale from Date of Initia...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Share Dispute Case — Allegations of Cheating and Forgery Found Baseless as Shares Were Jointly Held and Not Purchased by Complainant. The Court held that the complaint did not disclose any offence under...