Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2007 Supreme(SC) 1789

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.K. SEMA & V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.
State of Punjab & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Arun Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2336 of 2007 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 25592-25601 of 2005) WITH Civil Appeal No. 2337 and 2338 of 2007 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 26872 of 2005 and 2685 of 2006)
Decided On : 4-5-2007

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appearing Parties :- Sarup Singh, L. Nageswara Rao, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, N.C. Jain, P.S. Patwalia and Rajeev Dutta, Sr. Advocates with R.K. Pandey, Kuldip Singh, Sanjay Katyal, T.P. Mishra, Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, G. Balaji, Mrs. Amita Gupta, Deepak Sibal, Ejaz Maqbool, Vikash Singh, Ms. Taruna Singh, Abhijeet Sinha, Maninder Singh, Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Vivek Chib, Sumeet Bhatia, Gaurav Sharma, Shikha Ray, B.V. Deepak, Irshad Ahmad, Ashok K. Mahajan and Arun K. Sinha, Advocates.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the withdrawal of current duty charge (CDC) for promotion and the applicability of new 2004 Rules for filling up vacancies were valid, and no indefeasible right accrued to the diploma-holder junior engineers under 1941 Rules.

Headnote:
CDC - Promotion Dispute - 1941 Rules, 2004 Rules - Rule 5, Rule 19, Rule 3(1)(c), Rule 10 - The court discussed the dispute regarding the withdrawal of current duty charge (CDC) for promotion to the post of SDO under 1941 Rules and the applicability of new 2004 Rules for filling up vacancies. The court held that CDC was a stopgap arrangement and no indefeasible right accrued to the diploma-holder junior engineers. It also ruled that the conscious decision of the Government to fill up vacancies under 2004 Rules was valid, and directed the Government to fill up the vacant posts within three months under the new Rules.
Fact of the Case:

The dispute involved the withdrawal of current duty charge (CDC) for promotion to the post of SDO under 1941 Rules and the applicability of new 2004 Rules for filling up vacancies. The diploma-holder junior engineers were given CDC, which was subsequently withdrawn, leading to a legal challenge.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that CDC was a stopgap arrangement and no indefeasible right accrued to the diploma-holder junior engineers. It also held that the conscious decision of the Government not to fill up vacancies under 1941 Rules was valid, and directed the Government to fill up the vacant posts within three months under the new 2004 Rules.
Issues: The core issues were whether an indefeasible right accrued to the diploma-holder junior engineers for promotion and the applicability of 1941 Rules and 2004 Rules for filling up vacancies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that CDC was a temporary stopgap arrangement and no indefeasible right accrued to the diploma-holder junior engineers. It also ruled that the conscious decision of the Government not to fill up vacancies under 1941 Rules was valid, and directed the Government to fill up the vacant posts within three months under the new 2004 Rules.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order of the High Court, directed the Government to fill up the vacant posts within three months under the new 2004 Rules, and disposed of the appeals.

JUDGMENT :

H.K. Sema, J. - Leave granted.

2. All the aforesaid appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 18.10.2005 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in several writ petitions. The High Court by its impugned order disposed of all the writ petitions by a common order.

3. Although the hearing of these appeals has engaged our attention for a considerable length of time and spread over for many days' arguments, the dispute to be resolved is ensconced in a narrow compass.

4. We have heard the parties at length.

5. The core questions that arise for determination are these :-

(2) Whether old 1941 Rules or new 2004 Rules which became effective from 9.7.2004 will be applied for filling up the vacancies which arose during 2000-01 under old 1941 Rules for promotion to the post of SDO (Irrigation Department) in the State of Punjab.

Whether any indefeasible right has been accrued to the diploma-holder (outstanding categories) for promotion to the post of SDO by virtue of being given current duty charge by an order dated 21.6.2001 and whether any cause of action arose by withdrawing the same by an order dated 22.6.2005.

6. The respondents were diploma-holder Junior Engineers. By an order dated 21.6.2001, 20 Junior Engineers Diploma-holders (outstanding category) were given current duty charge to look after the charge of SDOs. The current duty charge were given under proviso to Rule 5 of 1941 Rules, who otherwise did not possess the qualifications specified under Rule 3 of the said Rules. The power was exercised by the Government conferred under Rule 19 of 1941 Rules.

7. The CDC/look after charge was given subject to the following conditions :-

(B) This charge is temporary in the existing pay scale of official and can be withdrawn without any prior notice and the officer cannot claim seniority etc. on the basis thereof.

(C) The official on the basis of this CDC/Look after charge cannot raise any claim for promotion under the provisions of Rule 3(1)(c) of the P.E.S. Class 2 Rules, 1941.

(D) This CDC/Look after charge shall be subject to the decision in different cases to be given by different Courts.

8. The CDC was subsequently withdrawn by an order dated 22.6.2005 which was impugned by the diploma holders (outstanding category) by filing various writ petitions. Many grounds were recited supporting the decision to withdraw the CDC. One shocking ground which we are tempted to quote is as under :-

"Whereas regular enquiry No. 28/2002 was registered by the Vigilance Bureau Punjab for tempering/stage-managing outstanding reports by the Junior Engineers for getting Current Duty Charge of the post of S.D.O. by Junior Engineer and the same is still under investigation."

9. At this stage, we may point out one of the arguments of Mr. Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel, appearing for diploma-holders (non outstanding category) that the diploma-holders represented by him are senior to those who obtained outstanding certificates. They are also more meritorious but outstanding certificate was not granted to them. In the back drop of the reasons recited, which we have noticed above, the contention of Mr. Rao appears to hold some water.

10. The other ground recited in the order dated 22.6.2005 supporting withdrawal of CDC which in our view would be relevant to resolve the present controversy is in the following terms :-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 1789

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the withdrawal of current duty charge (CDC) for promotion and the applicability of new 2004 Rules for filling up vacancies were valid, and no indefeasible right accrued to the diploma-holder junior engineers under 1941 Rules.

Cases Referred (9)