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

1989 Supreme(P&H) 495

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M.Punchhi, Ujagar Singh and A.P.Chowdhri JJ.
Punjab State Electricity Board Patiala
Versus
Ashok Kumar Sehgal
of,
Letters Patent Appeal No. 402 of 1988,
Civil Misc. No. 12923 of 1988,12924 of 1988,
Decided On : JULY 13, 1989

The judgment in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case was binding on all the petitioners and that they were entitled to promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. However, the Court also held that the Board was not required to reschedule promotions retrospectively as this would lead to chaos and would put the Board to a large financial burden. The Court further held that the writ petitioners were not entitled to arrears of salary for the period prior to the filing of their petitions.

Headnote:

The Punjab State Electricity Board (Board) had introduced a quota system for promotion to the cadre of Line Superintendent. The quota system was struck down by the Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case (1986 Lab IC 2076). Subsequently, several writ petitions were filed by non-diploma holder Linemen seeking promotion to the post of Line Superintendent on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The Board contended that the judgment in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case was not applicable to these cases as the quota system had already been abolished. The High Court held that the judgment in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case was binding on all the petitioners and that they were entitled to promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The Board appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the judgment in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case was binding on all the petitioners and that they were entitled to promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. However, the Court also held that the Board was not required to reschedule promotions retrospectively as this would lead to chaos and would put the Board to a large financial burden. The Court further held that the writ petitioners were not entitled to arrears of salary for the period prior to the filing of their petitions. The Court allowed the Board's appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court.

Fact of the Case:

The Punjab State Electricity Board (Board) had introduced a quota system for promotion to the cadre of Line Superintendent. The quota system was struck down by the Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case (1986 Lab IC 2076). Subsequently, several writ petitions were filed by non-diploma holder Linemen seeking promotion to the post of Line Superintendent on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The Board contended that the judgment in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case was not applicable to these cases as the quota system had already been abolished.

Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the judgment in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case was binding on all the petitioners and that they were entitled to promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. However, the Court also held that the Board was not required to reschedule promotions retrospectively as this would lead to chaos and would put the Board to a large financial burden. The Court further held that the writ petitioners were not entitled to arrears of salary for the period prior to the filing of their petitions.

Issues: Whether the judgment in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case was applicable to the present cases. Whether the Board was required to reschedule promotions retrospectively. Whether the writ petitioners were entitled to arrears of salary for the period prior to the filing of their petitions.

Ratio Decidendi: The judgment in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case was binding on all the petitioners and that they were entitled to promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The Board was not required to reschedule promotions retrospectively as this would lead to chaos and would put the Board to a large financial burden. The writ petitioners were not entitled to arrears of salary for the period prior to the filing of their petitions.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the Board's appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court.

Judgment

, J.

1. These 23 matters are indeed an assortment having common axis in Letters Patent-Appeal No.402of 1988 which has arisen from a judgment rendered by M. R. Agnihotri, J. , a learned Judge of this Court, in C. W. P. No.1903 of 1987 (Ashok Kumar Sehgal V/s. The Punjab State Electricity Board) decided on January 25, 1988. The Division Bench hearing L. P. A. No.402 of 1988 referred it to be heard by a Full Bench. And the other matters were tagged therewith to be heard by the Full Bench. This is how these matters have been placed before us.

2. At the very outset, we would venture to arrange these matters for facility of disposal in the following categories : (1) LPA NO.402 of 1988 itself. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereafter referred to as the Board) against the judgment and order passed in C. W. P, No.1903 of 1987 decided on January 25, 1988. (2) Matters directly connected with LPA No.402 of 1988. These are LPA Nos.403 to 411 of 1988 and LPA No.309 of 1988 which have been preferred by the Board against the common judgment and order as passed in C. W. P. Nos.497, 1440, 1716, 1806, 1812, 1942, 2476, 2609 and 3145 of 1987, which were allowed along with C. W. P. No.1903 of 1987. L. P. A. No.309 of 1988 has been preferred by a loosing party respondent in C. W. P. No.1903 of 1987. L. P. A. No.547 of 1988 is also against the decision in C. W. P. No.1903 of 1987 and has been preferred by the Punjab State Electricity Board Diploma-Holders Association after obtaining leave of the Court, since it was claimed that neither the Association-Appellant nor majority of its diploma-holders members had been impleaded as respondents in the said writ petition. (3) Matters indentical with L. P. A. No.402 of 1988. C. W. P. No.1637 of 1979 was allowed by J. V. Gupta, J. , another learned single Judge of this Court, on May 25, 1988, relying on the decision in C. W. P. No.1903 of 1987, L. P. A. No.661 of 1988 has been preferred by the Board against the said judgment and order. In C. W. P. Nos.1816, 1817 and 1845 of 1987 the same relief is sought as in C. W. P. No.1903 of 1987. (4) Matters militating against L. P. A. No.402 of 1988. C. W. P. No.3085 of 1988 is preferred by 485 petitioners claiming that the decision in C. W. P. No.1903 of 1987 be not put to effect as that would lead to the demotion of the petitioners. C. W. P. No.4138 of 1988 is also to the same effect in which 38 writ petitioners claim identical relief. This petition, however, is at the motion stage and has been listed for disposal. (5) Matters which are admixtured on which the shadow of L. P. A. No.402 of 1988 broods. C. W. P. No.1599 of 1985 was dismissed by D. V. Sehgal, J. , another learned single Judge of this Court, on the strength of his earlier decision in Jatinder Singh V/s. P. S. E. B. , (1986) I Serv LR 692 : (1986 Lab IC 1693 ). L. P. A. No.283 of 1988 is against the said judgment and order. The other matters which are dependant on the aforesaid case are C. W. P. Nos.363, 811, 1744 and 3450 of 1987. (6) Other entangled matters. These would be seen as the judgment proceeds.

3. Thus, in all we have 23 matters which are being disposed of sequentially by a common judgment.

4. The facts giving rise to L. P. A. No.402 of 1988 are these : The writ petitioner Ashok Kumar Sehgal has to his credit educational qualification of being Higher Secondary pass. Rejoined the Punjab State Electricity Board as an Assistant Lineman on July 8, 1966. He was promoted to the post of Lineman on January 25, 1973. In the seniority list of Lineman as it stood on August 31, 1974, his number was 2078. He was continuing on that post when he approached this Court by means of C. W. P. No.1903 of 1987, complaining, inter alia, that some of his juniors had been promoted as Line Superintendents, some of whose names he gave in paragraph 7 of the petition, and those promotions were illegal because of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Punj






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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