SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(SC) 234

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. GROVER AND G.K. MITTER, J.J.
Haryana State Electricity Board, Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab and Haryana and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 455 of 1970, D/- 17-4-1972.
Advocates appeared
M/s. K. K. Jain and Bishamber Lal, Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. K. C. Sharma, and M. S. Gupta, Advocates, with him) (for Nos.5 and 7); Mr. Anand Swaroop, Sr.Advocate, (M/s. H. K. Puri and S. K. Dhingra, Advocates, with him) (for No.10), for Respondents.

Headnote:

Punjab Service of Engineers Rules, 1939 - Rule 7-A - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Posts of Assistant Engineers - Restoration of Seniority - Questions relating to interpretation of Rule 7-A of Punjab Service of Engineers Rules, 1939 - Held, It was denied that Rule 7-A was applicable to writ petitioner - As writ petitioner had been confirmed in Class I with effect from respondents 3 to 9 had become senior to him under provisions of Rule 7-A - In class of Executive Engineers also writ petitioner became junior to respondents 3 to 9 since they had been confirmed with effect from earlier dates - It appears to Court that judgment of High Court in this case does not call for any interference - Main stress that was laid by learned counsel for State was on laches and delay on part of B. K. Puri in filing petition in High Court - From resume of various dates which has already been given it is apparent that he kept on making representations and moving appropriate authorities at all stages and only reason which has been suggested for confirming him in Class I subsequent to respondents 3 to 9 is that he had been passed over on ground which has already been mentioned - High Court has dealt with that aspect fully and in view of interpretation of proviso to Rule 7-A which has already been discussed in connected appeal by Court it is difficult to disagree with High Court that there was no justification for not confirming B. K. Puri in Class I from same date on which other respondents (3 to 9) were confirmed - Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

GROVER, J.:- This is an appeal from a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in which one of the main questions relating to the interpretation of Rule 7-A of the Punjab Service of Engineers (Electricity Branch) (Condition of Service) Rules, 1939, hereinafter called the Rules has been discussed in the connected matter i.e. Civil Appeal No. 456 of 1970 in which the judgment is being announced today.

2. The facts may be shortly stated. In August 1949 certain posts of Assistant Engineers Class II were advertised. In March 1950 B. K. Puri respondent No.10 along with B. N. Rampal respondent No.3 and others were selected in consultation with the Punjab Public Service Commission. On March 23, 1950 B. K. Puri joined service as Officiating Assistant Engineer Class II. On April 5, 1950 B. N. Rampal respondent No.3 joined the service as Officiating Assistant Engineer Class II. Other respondents Nos. 4 to 9 joined the service after B. K. Puri as Officiating Assistant Engineers Class II. Between 1953 and 1954 the Punjab Public Service Commission selected respondents 3 to 9 for appointment to Class I (junior) on officiating basis. According to the appellant the case of B. K. Puri was considered on each occasion but he was fund unsuitable and was passed over for certain reasons. On April 6, 1956, B. K. Puri was also selected and appointed as Officiating Assistant Engineer Class I (Junior). On May 11, 1956 respondents 3, 4, 6 and 9 along with others were confirmed as Assistant Engineers Class II with effect from October 1, 1955. B. K. Puri was not confirmed as Assistant Engineer Class II for the reason that he had not passed the Safety Code examination, which it is stated, was a condition precedent to confirmation. A memorandum was issued to 15 persons including B. K. Puri and respondents 5, 7 and 8 that their cases for confirmation would be considered after they had passed the said examination. On November 11, 1956 the erstwhile State of Punjab and Pepsu were merged. Thereafter before March 1958, respondents 5, 7 and 8 were cofnirmed as Assistant Engineers Class II with effect from October 1, 1955. B. K. Puri wrote a letter to the Chief Engineer on March 16, 1958 for his seniority being restored. On March 21, 1958, 28 persons in Class I including respondents 3 to 6, 8 and 9 were confirmed with effect from September 1, 1956. Respondent No.7 was also confirmed subsequently in Class I with effect from the same date. B. K. Puri was not confirmed in Class I as till that time he had not been confirmed as Assistant Engineer Class II. On August 18, 1958, B. K. Puri was confirmed as Assistant Engineer Class II with effect from October 1, 1955. In 1959 respondents 3 to 9 were promoted as Officiating Executive Engineers. In January 1959 B. K. Puri made a representation against the confirmation in Class I of respondents 3 to 9 who were junior to him in Class II. On December 19, 1959, notwithstanding that B. K. Puri had not been confirmed till then in Class I he was also promoted as Officiating Executive Engineer. But as mentioned before that was done after respondents 3 to 9 had been so promoted. In January 1960 representation made by B. K. Puri was rejected by the Government. In 1963 B. K. Puri made another representation to the Minister of Irrigation and Power. On June 27, 1963 he was confirmed in Class I but with effect from April 7, 1957. Respondents 3 to 7 had been confirmed as Executive Engineers with effect from various dates between March 1, 1961 to December 17, 1963. Respondent No.8 was confirmed after them with effect from December 17, 1963. On May 11, 1965 B. K. Puri and respondent no.9 were confirmed as Executive Engineer with effect from Janaury 1, 1965. On June 22, 1965 B. K. Puri made a representation to the Minister of Irrigation and Power for restoration of his seniority in Class I. That representation was forwarded to the Chairman of the Electricity Board. In June 1966 B. K. Puri was informed that his request for confirm








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top