caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Inderjit Singh Sodhi vs The Chairman Punjab State … on 3 December, 2020Author: L. Nageswara Rao
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, Ajay Rastogi
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3837 OF 2020
(@ SLP(C) No. 23877 OF 2014)
INDERJIT SINGH SODHI AND OTHERS …..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB STATE …..RESPONDENT(S)
ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANOTHER
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3835 OF 2020
(@ SLP CIVIL NO. 22791 OF 2014)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3836 OF 2020
(@SLP(C) No. 24195 OF 2014)
JUDGMENT
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The present appeals are directed against a common order of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 09.04.2014 whereby the intra-
Court appeals filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board were allowed
2
and the order of Learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petitions for
the grant of 9/16 years’ time bound revised promotional scale to the
appellants was set aside.
2. The facts of the appeals are similar but for the sake of reference, facts
are taken from the appeal preferred by Inderjit Singh Sodhi and
others. The appellants herein have claimed time bound promotional
scale while working as Assistant Engineers. They were promoted to the
said post from the post of Junior Engineer. The services of the
appellants are governed by the Punjab State Electricity Board Service
of Engineers (Civil) Regulations, 19651.
3. The post of Assistant Engineer as per Regulation 7 is required to be
filled up (1) by direct recruitment in terms of Regulation 9; (2) by
promotion in terms of Regulation 10 or (3) by transfer of an officer
already in services of a Government or another Government or
Undertaking of the Government. The qualification required for direct
recruitment under Regulation 9 is BE in Civil Engineering from a
recognised institution or university. The Regulations further permit
serving Section Officers who possess three- or four-years diploma in
Civil Engineering and minimum 12 years qualifying service to apply for
the post by way of direct recruitment. Regulation 10, on the other
1
for short, ‘Civil Regulations’
3
hand, provides for the promotion of the candidates with not less than
10 years’ experience subject to the condition that their number do not
exceed 30 per cent of the total number of the cadre posts of the
Assistant Engineers.
4. The relevant extract of the Civil Regulations read as under:-
“7. Recruitment to the Service shall be made by the
Appointment Authority by any of the methods indicated below
as may be determined in each case:-
(a) In case of posts of Asstt. Engineers.
(i) By direct appointment as provided in Regulation 9
(ii) By Promotion as provided in Regulation 10
(iii) By transfer of an officer already in the service of a
Government or any other State Electricity Board or an
Undertaking of Government.
xx xx xx
QUALIFICATION FOR DIRECT APPOINTMENT
9. No Person shall be appointed as AE (Civil) on training by
direct appointment unless he has passed BE in Civil Engineering
from recognised Institution/Univ.(Equivalency as notified by the
Institution of Engineers Association of Indian Universities/
Pbi.University/Pbi.Univ. Calendar.)
PSEB Serving sectional officers (Civil) who possess ¾ years
diploma in Civil Engineering & have minimum 12 years qualifying
service as Sectional Officer (Civil) with satisfactory service record
4
shall also be eligible to apply for the post.
xx xx xx
QUALIFICATION FOR APPOIONTMENT BY PROMOTION
10.1 (a) Sectional Officers (Civil) under the Board having
their record above average and with not less than 10 years
experience to their credit shall be eligible for appointment to
the service as Assistant Engineer, subject to the condition that
their number does not exceed 20% of the total number of
cadre posts of Assistant Engineers excluding the posts with
B.D.M.B./B.C.B. and deputation posts or posts where PSEB
cannot directly post its officers i.e. Hydel/Design Directorate,
Chandigarh.
(b) Over and above this reservation, Sectional Officers
(Civil) with requisite service/experience may be considered for
additional vacancies of Assistant Engineers for field work
without any fixed percentage.
2. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
3. Persons appointed by promotion as Assistant Engineers
under Sub Regulation (1) and (2) above shall not be eligible
for promotion to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineer and
above, unless they possess the qualification prescribed in
Regulation-9.
4. 9% of the cadre posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil)
shall be reserved for Departmental employees (Technical
Subordinates and Drawing Staff) who while in the service of
the Board have qualified Section (A) and (B) of A.M.I.E.
Examination and have completed three years service. (This
shall take effect from 15th April, 1983).”
5
5. The appellants were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers under
Regulation 7(a)(ii) read with Regulation 10 of the Civil Regulations as
stated in para 4 of the writ petition which reads as under:
“4. That the petitioners were appointed as AE Class II service
by way of promotion under Regulation 7(a)(ii) i.e. by way of
promotion out of Junior Engineers Grade I Service: whereas
Kirpal Singh Mangat and Raj Kumar Garg have been appointed
under Regulation 7(a)(i) i.e. by way of direct recruitment
provided under Regulation 9 of the PSEB Regulations 1965.”
6. 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. A
representation was submitted by the appellants claiming parity with
Kirpal Singh and Raj Kumar Garg with regard to the time bound
promotional scale. Such representation was decided on 06.11.2012,
wherein, it was inter alia said to the following effect:
“And whereas, Er. Inderjit Singh Sodhi, AEE (Retd.) was
promoted from the post of S.O./Civil to AE/Civil w.e.f. 19.8.77
as per avenue of his promotion in terms of Reg.7 read with
Reg. 10 of PSEB Service of Engineers (Civil) Regulations, 1965
and further promoted as AEE(Civil) w.e.f. 22.3.85. Whereas
Er. Kirpal Singh Mangat and Er. Raj Kumar Garg both AEE now
senior Executive Engineer (Civil) while working as S.O./ Civil
applied for the post of AE/Civil under direct recruitment
6
category and were selected for the post of AE/Civil and given
fresh appointment letter.
xx xx xx
And whereas, from the record it is evidence that interese these
persons named Er. Inderjit Singh Sodhi, Er. Kirpal Singh and
Er. Raj Kumar Garg came into service on 3.1.62, 12.9.64.
14.10.64 dates and all of them got an opportunity to go to the
direct recruitment quota of Assistant Engineers. The Board
advertised the posts for Assistant Engineers/Civil to be filled
through direct recruitment in which the existing Board
employees can also apply and in that contest Er. K. S. Mangat
and Er. Raj Kumar Garg had also applied and got selected as
Assistant Engineer/Civil and were given the new appointment
letters from the effective dates and they continue to serve as
per the Board regulations framed from time to time.
xx xx xx”
7. 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
relevant extract from the circular dated 23.04.19902 reads thus:
“Features of the Scheme
1. The benefit of first time bound placement into
promotional/devised promotional scale, as determined
and notified on the basis of principles, enunciated above,
would become available to an employee on completion of
2
hereinafter referred as “First Circular”.
7
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 gets normal promotion to the
next higher post before completion of 9 years service
from the date of direct recruitment then he will not be
given first time bound promotional/devised promotional
scale. He will be eligible to get second time bound
promotional/devised promotional scale after the
completion of 16 years of service counted from the date
of direct recruitment provided he does not earn second
normal promotion before the completion of the above
said 16 years of service. Further an employee placed into
the first promotional/devised promotional scale on
account of his length of service will not be placed into the
second promotional/devised promotional scale before
completion of atleast three years from the date of his
placement into the first promotional/devised promotional
scale.
For example an employee who has completed 17 years of
service in an inducting post and was not promoted upto
1.1.1986, will be allowed 1st time bound
promotional/devised promotional scale on 1.1.1986 and
the 2nd time bound promotional/devised promotional scale
will be admissible on 1.1.1989 i.e. after completion of
three years service in the first time bound
promotional/devised promotional scale.
2. At the time of placement in the time bound
promotional/devised promotional scale to each employee
in any cadre the prescribed period will be counted from
the date of commencement of service to the lowest post
on which regular appointment has been made through
8
direct recruitment in the concerned cadre.
3. At the time of placement in the time bound
promotional/devised promotional scale , the employee
will be allowed promotional increment(s), as are
admissible on promotion under the provisions of
Regulations 8 of PSEB (Revised Pay) Regulations, 1988
and as amended from time to time.
4. 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.
5. The Board shall draw up schedule (s) indicating the lowest
post(s) for direct recruitment in respect of various cadres
for the purpose of this order, separately.
6. In cases, an employee has already availed of the benefit
of placement to the time bound promotional/devised
promotional scale(s) and is promoted to the next higher
post, his pay would be fixed at the next stage in the same
scale. In case he is promoted to a post which is lower than
the scale in which he has already been placed on time
bound promotional/devised promotional scale, he will not
be entitled to any increment and continue to draw the pay
of the scale in which he has already been placed.
7. In case of employees who do not fulfill the
qualification/passing of examination essential for their
promotion to the next higher post, they shall also be place
into the time bound promotional/devised promotional
scale to be specified by the Board in the schedule as
referred to in para 5 (above).
8. No anomaly of pay would be claimed by any senior
9
employee viz-a-viz any other employee merely on the
strength of latter getting his placement into the time
bound promotional/devised promotional scale.
9. The authority competent to grant time bound
promotional/devised promotional scales after 9 years and
16 years service shall be the promoting authority of the
employees concerned.
2. The Punjab State Elecy. Board has further decided to allow
benefit of promotional increment(s) to an employee on completion of
23 years of regular service provided:-
(i) He has not been benefited by the scheme of 9/16
years time bound promotional scale.
(ii) He has not earned three regular promotions in his
career.
(iii) He has not earned third promotion in his regular
service between 16th and 23rd years of service.
(iv) The increments referred to in para-2 above are in
the nature of advance promotional benefit to be
absorbed in next regular promotion.”
8. Another Circular dated 24.05.19903 is part of the record of the other
two appeals preferred by Surinder Kumar Pathak and R.K. Arora and
another. It reads as under:-
“In supersession of office order no. 195/PRC/Fin-1988 dated
31.3.1990, the Punjab State Electricity Board is pleased to
order that an Assistant Engineer/Assistant Executive Engineer
would be placed in the next higher scale of Rs. 3000-5000 and
allowed a minimum pay of Rs. 3500/- in the 10th year i.e. on
3
hereinafter referred to as “Second Circular”.
10
completion of 9 (nine) years regular service as Assistant
Engineer/Assistant Executive Engineer. Similarly, he would be
placed in the next higher scale of Rs. 4500-6300 in the 17th
(Seventeenth) year i.e. on completion of 16 (sixteen) years
regular service as Assistant Engineer/Assistant Executive
Engineer.
The next higher scale will thus be allowed as under:-
AE/AEE (i) 2200-50-2400-60- Basic Scale
2700-3000-100-4000
125-4250(with
(ii) 3000-100-4000-125- Next Higher
5000-150-5600 Scale with a
minimum pay of
Rs. 3500/- in the
10th year i.e. on
the completion
(iii) 4500-125-5000-150 Second Next
5900-200-6300 Higher scale in
the 17th
XEN 3000-100-4000-125- Basic Scale
4500-125-5000-150- Next Higher
Scale
2. The above higher scales will only be available to the
directly recruited Asstt. Engineers as per Regulation 7-a(i)
read with Regulation-9 of PSEB, Service of Engineers
(Electrical) Regulations-1965/ 7-a (i) read with Regulation 9
of PSEB Service Engineers (Civil) Regulations-1965. The
cases of Assistant Engineers appointed by promotion as per
provisions of Regulation-7-a(ii) read with Regulation-10 of the
Regulations ibid will be governed by guidelines circulated vide
11
Secretary/Finance Office Order No. 197/PRC/Fin-1988 dated
23.4.1990.
Note:- The departmental employees (Technical) Subordinates
and Drawing Staff) who while in service of the Board have
been promoted to the post of AE (Electrical)/ (Civil) against
quota reserved for promotion from amongst them under
Regulation 7-a(ii) read with Regulation-10(7) of the PSEB
Service of Engineers (Electrical) Regulations-1965/ Regulation
7-a(ii) read with Regulation 10(4) of the PSEB Service of
Engineers (Civil) Regulations-1965 shall be deemed to have
been appointed as Asstt. Engineers like the Asstt. Engineers
appointed through direct recruitment under Regulation 7-a(i)
read with Regulation-9 of the Service of Engineers (Electrical)/
Regulation 7-a(i) read with Regulation -9 of the service of
Engineers (Civil) ibid for the purpose of grant of above next
higher scales after 9-16 years of regular service as Assistant
Engineer/Assistant Executive Engineer/ Executive
Engineer/Xen, prescribed period to be counted from the date
of joining the post of Asstt. Engineer on regular basis.
Similarly Graduates in Electrical/Mechanical Engineering/ Civil
Engineering AMIE qualified/ AMIE qualified hands who
possess this qualification before joining the service of the
Board and subsequently promoted as Assistant Engineers
against quota reserved for promotion from amongst them in
terms of provisions of Regulation 7-a(ii) read with Regulation
10(9) of Service of Engineers (Electrical) Regulations-1965/
Regulation 7-a(ii) read with Regulation 10(6) of Service of
Engineers (Civil) Regulations-1965 will be treated likewise.”
9. The Second Circular was thus issued to grant time bound promotional
scale to directly recruited Assistant Engineers. However, the promoted
12
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. For the purpose of better
understanding, the format has been changed to put the Regulations in
one line as an alternative Regulations.
10. Similar claim for time bound promotional scale was raised by one
Rajinder Singh Patpatia, a promoted Assistant Engineer working with
Bhakra Beas Management Board. The writ petition filed by him before
the Punjab and Haryana High Court was allowed by the learned Single
Judge on 26.08.1999 and the intra-Court Appeal against the same was
dismissed on 13.08.2001 vide judgment reported as Bhakra Beas
Management Board v. Rajinder Singh Patpatia and Anr4. The
Special Leave Petition against such order of the Division Bench was
also dismissed on 15.2.2002.
11. Another writ petition was filed by one named T. R. Bansal, junior to the
appellants as Assistant Engineer (Civil) which was allowed by the
Division Bench of the High Court on 1.02.2005. The Special Leave
Petition against the said order was dismissed by this Court on
4
(2002) 1 Recent Service Judgments 32
13
15.07.2010. Subsequently, Writ Petition no. 468 of 2004 preferred by
T.S. Behl and others was also allowed on 10.02.2006 by the Division
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
12. A Writ Petition No. 19306 of 2003, Krishan Kumar Vij v. State of
Punjab was filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court claiming
time bound promotional scale. The writ petitioners were employed
with Bhakra Beas Management Board. The said Board had adopted the
Circular issued by Punjab State Electricity Board on 26.6.1992. The
writ petition was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court on
6.12.2004. The order of the High Court was however later set aside by
this Court in a judgment reported as Bhakra Beas Management
Board v. Krishan Kumar Vij & Anr5.
13. Mr. Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants argued that
once the appellants have been promoted to the post of Assistant
Engineer, at par with other juniors who may have been appointed by
way of direct recruitment, there cannot be any discrimination in the
matter of pay scale and that they are entitled to equal treatment in
the matter of pay. It was pointed out that the appellants were
appointed as Junior Engineers in 1961-62 and were promoted after 14
years to the post of Assistant Engineers. In terms of Regulation 7 of
5
(2010) 8 SCC 701
14
Civil Regulations, the appellants possessed the qualifications for direct
recruitment. Hence, the appellants could not be treated differently in
comparison to the directly appointed Assistant Engineers. The directly
recruited Assistant Engineers were granted time bound promotional
scale, whereas, the appellants who were senior to them have been
denied such benefits. It was thus contended that it is a blatant arbitrary
and discriminatory act of the respondents which was unsustainable in
law. It was further argued that there was a consistent view of the High
Court in the cases of T. R. Bansal and T. S. Behl, who were similarly
placed promoted Assistant Engineers with the Punjab State Electricity
Board. They were found to be entitled to time bound promotional scale
w.e.f. 1.01.1986 vide the orders of the High Court in separate writ
petitions filed by them. However, while dismissing the case of the
appellants, the High Court relied upon a judgment of this Court in
Krishan Kumar Vij which dealt with the claim of an Assistant
Engineer in the Bhakra Beas Management Board, thus the judgment
relied on was not on similar facts.
14. Mr. Patwalia raised another argument in the written submissions that
in terms of the Second Circular, the promotee employees are to be
considered for time bound promotional scale in terms of First Circular.
According to the Clause 2(iii) of the First Circular, an employee on
completion of 23 years’ service is also entitled to the benefits of the
15
said Scheme in case he is not benefited from the Scheme of 9/16
years.
15. On the other hand, Mr. Gulati, learned Counsel for the respondents
argued that time bound promotional scale would be applicable to the
promotee officer such as the appellants only in terms of the First
Circular which contemplates that an employee shall be entitled to
promotional scale on completion of 9 years of regular service on a post
and subsequent second time bound promotional scale after completion
of 16 years of service. If in case an employee gets normal promotion
to the next higher post before completion of 9 years’ service, he would
not be entitled to first time bound promotional scale. He would
however be eligible to get second promotional scale after completion
of 16 years’ service, counted from the date of direct recruitment,
provided that he does not earn second normal promotion before the
completion of above said 16 years’ service. It was also contended that
the Second Circular was not disputed by any of the appellants at any
stage.
16. We do not find any merit in the argument raised by Mr. Patwalia. 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
16
same has been annexed by two other appellants Surinder Kumar
Pathak and R.K. Arora. 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.
17. We find that 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.
18. We find that 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 the such dismissals
17
would not be a binding precedent for this Court. This argument was
also raised and examined in Krishan Kumar Vij wherein this Court
relied upon the judgment of this Court reported as Kunhayammed &
Ors v. State Of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359. Therefore, the dismissal
of special leave petitions is of no consequence on the question of law.
The following was held in Krishan Kumar Vij:
“22. We have already mentioned hereinabove with regard to
Clause 2 of the 1990 Order read with Regulation 9 which restricts
the benefit only to directly recruited Assistant Engineers/Assistant
Executive Engineers, meaning thereby that one must possess the
requisite qualification as prescribed under the Regulations, then
only the benefit would accrue to the employee, not otherwise.
The Note appended thereto clearly stipulates that even those
employees who were promoted under Regulation 7(a)(ii) read
with Regulation 10(4) shall be deemed to have been appointed
by direct recruitment. This legal fiction is limited. It is applicable
only to those employees who have been promoted in conformity
with the provisions contained in Clause 4. Thus, the employees
who had passed both Parts (A) and (B) of the AMIE examination
and were promoted against 9% posts reserved for that class were
fictionally treated as direct recruits. Thus, it clearly stipulates that
only those Assistant Engineers who were either directly recruited
or had acquired the requisite qualifications prescribed for direct
recruitment were chosen to be granted higher scale if they had
been promoted against the post falling within the quota of 9% of
the cadre strength of the said post.
23. The 1990 Order contemplates that it is to be followed as per
regulation which provides that only such persons as have been
promoted under Regulation 7(a)(ii) read with Regulation 10(4)
shall be treated as direct recruits. In other words, it does not apply
to the promotees irrespective of their academic qualifications nor
can they be treated on a par with the direct recruits. There was a
purpose for treating them so, otherwise, it would have the effect
18
of violating the constitutional mandate contained in Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India, on the premise that unequals
have been treated as equals. It is with that intention, to avoid
criticism and future litigation that such persons who possessed
qualifications for direct recruitment and could be promoted
against the posts falling vacant, would become entitled to claim
the benefit. Since Respondent 1 did not fall in this category,
obviously, he was not entitled to the higher scale.
24. Thus, there appears to be no illegality committed by the
Board in rejecting Respondent 1’s representation. So, in our
considered opinion, the High Court has clearly erred in setting
aside and quashing the same.
25. The critical examination of the impugned judgment passed by
the Division Bench of the High Court completely defeats primary
purpose of the 1990 Order and provisions applicable to the
employees of the Board. No doubt, it is true that the 1990 Order
was issued only with an intention to remove the stagnation but
this would not give blanket or absolute right to any employee to
be entitled to higher pay scale even if he does not fulfil
prerequisite qualifications for holding the higher post. In other
words, if he possesses the required qualifications but is unable to
get the higher post on account of non-availability of such post,
then only he can be categorised as suffering from stagnation as
per Order of 23-4-1990.”
19. The First and Second Circulars of the Punjab State Electricity Board
were examined by this Court, wherein, it was observed that the Second
Circular is applicable only in respect of employees appointed by way of
direct recruitment. The benefit would not be extended to the promoted
employees. This Court found that the legal fiction is limited in respect
of the employees promoted under Regulation 7(a)(i) read with
Regulation 10(4). It is applicable to only those employees who have
19
been promoted in conformity with the provisions contained in Clause
4 of the Regulation 10 of the Regulations which deal with promotion of
the employees who have passed both parts (A) and (B) of A.M.I.E.
Examination and were promoted against 9% posts reserved for that
Class of direct recruitment.
20. Shri Krishan Kumar Vij, in the reported judgment, was not possessing
A.M.I.E. qualification and thus was never appointed in terms of
Regulation 7(a)(i) read with Regulation 10.4 of the Regulations. In the
present appeals, there is no assertion that any of the appellants have
qualified both parts of A.M.I.E. Examination which is treated to be
equivalent to the Engineering Degree. 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.
21. The claim of the appellants of discrimination and arbitrariness on the
basis of time bound promotional scale granted to Kirpal Singh Mangat
20
and Raj Kumar Garg is not found to be sustainable. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. The argument that the appellants are entitled to promotion scale after
23 years was not the case setup either in the writ petition or even in
the present appeals. Such an argument has in fact been raised for the
21
first time in the written submissions. We find that such a factual
argument cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage.
25. In view of the said facts, we do not find any error in the order passed
by the High Court which may warrant any interference of this Court.
All the appeals are thus accordingly dismissed.
………………………..J.
(L. NAGESWARA RAO)
………………………..J.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
………………………..J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
New Delhi,
December 3, 2020.
Comments