Bhakra Beas Management Board vs Krishan Kumar Vij

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(SC) 763

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMA
Bhakra Beas Management Board
Versus
Krishan Kumar Vij & Another
CIVIL APPEAL No.3439 of 2007 WITH Civil Appeal No.3438 of 2007; Civil Appeal No.3440 of 2007; AND Civil Appeal No.3418 of 2007
Decided on : 19-08-2010

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:J.L. Gupta, D.S. Nehra, Sr. Advocates, Ms. Nidhi Gupta (for Ms. S. Janani), Satinder S. Gulati, Mrs. Kamaldeep Gulati, Dr. Kailash Chand, Advocates. For the Respondent(s):Mahaveer Singh, T.S. Doabia, Sr. Advocates, Ms. Reena Singh, Sanjeev Kumar, Roshan (for T. Mahipal), Kuldip Singh (for Mr. Ajay Pal), Mrs. Kiran Bhardwaj (for Mrs. Sushma Suri) (for Mrs. Anil Katiyar), Anil Mittal, Vibhuti Sushant, Ms. Kumud Lata Das, Rajiv Kataria, Ms. Debjani Das Purkayastha (for M/s. Delhi Law Chambers) Advocates.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 136 – SLP dismissed by a non-speaking order – Will not be binding precedent – The subject matter may be agitated on merits. (Para 21)
       (2000) 6 SCC 359 – Relied upon
       (b) Service of Engineers (Electrical) Regulations-1965 Service of Engineers (Civil) Regulations – 1965 – Regulation 7(a)(ii) read with Regulation 10(4) – Persons promoted under Regulation 7(a)(ii) read with Regulation 10(4) to be treated as direct recruits – Order of 1990 applies to only such persons – Thus it does not apply to the promotees – Such promotees cannot be treated at par with the direct recruits – Respondent no. 1 not falling in this category – Not entitled to the higher scale – A person possessing required qualifications but not getting higher post for non-availability of post – He can be categorised as stagnating – No infirmity in Board ejecting respondent’s claim. (Para 24, 25)
       (c) Interpretation of statutes – Construction which is likely to defeat the plain intention of the legislature even though there may be some inexactitude in the language used should be rejected – In a choice of two constructions, one which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation should be avoided. (Para 35)
       (1918) AC 541; (1926) AC 37; AIR 1961 SC 1494 : 1961 (3) SCR 986 – Relied upon
       (d) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Delay of 8 years in filing writ petition – Liable to be rejected on that ground alone. (Para 39)
       Facts of the case:
       Respondent No.1 had initially joined the services of the State of Punjab, Department of Irrigation as Tracer in 1949. He was thereafter promoted as a Draftsman in the year 1950. He was further promoted as Divisional Head Draftsman, some time in the year 1962. Thereafter, he was transferred in the services of the Board. There also, he earned promotion as Circle Head Draftsman and then as the Assistant Design Engineer. Regular promotion to respondent No.1 on the post of Asstt. Design Engineer in Punjab Service of Engineers (II) was granted with retrospective effect from 1.6.1976. Finally, on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31.1.1987. Even though, respondent no.1 had earned several promotions, while in service, he still complained of stagnation in service as he was not able to earn further promotion.
       Respondent no.1 had made several representations claiming grant of time-bound promotional scale of Rs.4500-6300 w.e.f. 1.1.1986.
       Then he approached the High Court which ultimately allowed his petition.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
       Result:
       Appeal allowed.

Judgment :-

Deepak Verma, J.

1. This Judgment and Order shall govern disposal of C.A.No.3439 of 2007, C.A.No.3438 of 2007, C.A. No. 3418 of 2007 and C.A. No.3440 of 2007 as they project common question of law to be answered by this Court. Precisely, we are required to consider whether in the light of the Order/Circular issued by the appellant- Bhakra Beas Management Board (hereinafter shall be called as 'Board'), respondent No.1 - employee would be entitled to the benefit of higher scale of pay/upgradation/stepping up of salary sans pre- requisite qualification for the grant of the same.

2. For the sake of convenience, facts appearing in Civil Appeal No.3439 of 2007 are being taken into consideration. Respondent No.1, Krishan Kumar Vij had initially joined the services of the State of Punjab, Department of Irrigation as Tracer in 1949. He was thereafter promoted as a Draftsman in the year 1950. He was further promoted as Divisional Head Draftsman, some time in the year 1962. Thereafter, he was transferred in the services of the Board. There also, he earned promotion as Circle Head Draftsman and then as the Assistant Design Engineer. Regular promotion to respondent No.1 on the post of Asstt. Design Engineer in Punjab Service of Engineers (II) was granted with retrospective effect from 1.6.1976. Finally, on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31.1.1987. Even though, respondent no.1 had earned several promotions, while in service, he still complained of stagnation in service as he was not able to earn further promotion. This was the cause for triggering off the instant litigation.

3. Brief history giving rise to this litigation is as under :-

4. State of Punjab was of the opinion that there existed stagnation amongst various cadres of regular employees. Pursuant thereto, an Office Order was issued by the Punjab State Electricity Board (for short 'PSEB') on 23.4.1990, adopted by the Board vide Order dated 26.06.1992. The aims and objects of the said Office Order issued by the PSEB are reproduced hereinbelow :

"The Punjab State Electricity Board have been seized of the problems of stagnation prevailing amongst the various cadres of regular employees and its consequent effect in their efficiency. It is felt that an employee should under ideal service conditions get normally two promotions from his initial recruitment level during his service. However, this is not always possible owing to non-availability of promotional posts. The aspiration of the employees can however, be met to a great extent, by allowing time-bound higher scales to the employees at two stages in their service career. The Punjab State Electricity Board has, therefore, decided to introduce scheme to allow time-bound benefit of promotional scales after the completion of 9/16 years of regular service in the PSEB, provided the maximum benefit on being placed in the time-bound promotional scales does not exceed five increments including promotional increment(s) to the subordinate employees having a maximum scale upto Rs.3500/-except the categories where the benefit of time-bound placement to higher scale is applicable on the Punjab Government pattern as in the case of teachers etc."

5. The said scheme of time-bound benefit of promotional scale commenced from 1.1.1986 but the payment of arrears was spread over two years i.e. arrears from 1.1.1986 to 28.2.1989 were to be paid in 1990-91 and 1991-1992. As per this Circular, the benefit of first time-bound placement would be available to an employee on completion of 9 years of regular service on the post and second time-bound promotional scale would be available after completion of sixteen years of service. Para 7 thereof refers to those employees who do not fulfil the qualification/passing of examination essential for promotion to the next higher post, but they shall also be placed into the time bound promotional/devised promotional scale to be specified by the Board in the schedule as referred

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 763

Cases Referred (3)