IMPORTANT POINTS
Dismissal of a matter by Supreme Court at the threshold, with non-speaking order, would not be a binding precedent.
Any construction which reduces the statute to a futility has to be avoided.
Inordinately long and unexplained delay should not be condoned in a casual manner.

Headnote:(a) Binding precedent – Dismissal of a matter by Supreme Court at the threshold, with non-speaking order, would not be a binding precedent.– Accordingly any order passed by the High Court placing reliance on earlier order can still be challenged subsequently. (Para 21)
        (2000) 6 SCC 359 – Relied upon
        (b) PSEB Service of Engineers (Electrical) Regulation,1965 – Regulation 9 r/w Clause 2 of Order of 1990 – Time bound promotion – In order that the benefit of scheme accrues to a person he must possess the requisite qualification as prescribed under the Regulations. (Para 22)
        (c) PSEB Service of Engineers (Electrical)Regulation,1965 – Regulation 9 r/w Clause 2 of Order of 1990 – Time bound promotion – Legal fiction under Regulation 7(a)(ii) r/w Regulation 10(4) is limited – Available only to the employees who had passed both parts (A) and (B) of the AMIE Examination and were promoted against 9% posts reserved for that class - It does not apply to the promotees irrespective of their academic qualifications – Such employees cannot be treated at par with the direct recruits. (Paras 23 and 24)
        (d) Service Law – Time bound Promotion – Order of 1990 – If an employee 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. (Para 25)
        (e) Service Law – Time bound promotion – Employees fully aware of the terms and conditions of time bound promotion and attending pre-requisite qualification not attempting to improve their qualification – Cannot complain of stagnation. (Para 28)
        (f) Interpretation of Statutes – Any construction which reduces the statute to a futility has to be avoided. (Para 33)
       (1918) AC 541; (1926) AC 37; AIR 1961 SC 1494 : 1961 (3) SCR 986 – Relied upon
        (g) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Inordinately long and unexplained delay should not be condoned in a casual manner. (Para 39)
       Facts of the case:
        1. Respondent no. 1, was promoted as Divisional Head Draftsman and 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.
        2. Finally he retired from service on 31.1.1987. Even though he had earned several promotions, while in service, he still complained of stagnation in service as he was not able to earn further promotion.
        3. In order to alleviate stagnation, an office order was issued in regard of time bound promotion.
        4. Pursuant to the scheme of time bound promotion, respondent no.1 made several representations claiming grant of time-bound promotional scale of Rs.4500-6300 w.e.f. 1.1.1986.
        5. His application was rejected by the Board. The High Court vide the impugned judgment and order passed on 6.12.2004 allowed his petition.
       Finding of the Court:
        1. Board committed no illegality in rejecting respondent no.1’s representation.
        2. Impugned order cannot be sustained.
       Result : Appeals 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

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2010 Supreme(SC) 770

IMPORTANT POINTS Dismissal of a matter by Supreme Court at the threshold, with non-speaking order, would not be a binding precedent. Any construction which reduces the statute to a futility has to be avoided. Inordinately long and unexplained delay should not be condoned in a casual manner.

Cases Referred (3)

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINTS
Dismissal of a matter by Supreme Court at the threshold, with non-speaking order, would not be a binding precedent.
Any construction which reduces the statute to a futility has to be avoided.
Inordinately long and unexplained delay should not be condoned in a casual manner.