Important Point
Where a stop-gap arrangement is made for placing a person on the higher post for a long time with the undertaking that he would not claim higher salary or attendant benefits, such stop-gap arrangement would be contrary to law and also opposed to public policy and is unenforceable in view of Section 23 of Contract Act, 1872.

Judgment

S. Saghir Ahmad, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.12.93 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandi­garh (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. The dispute relates to the promotion on the posts of Junior Engi­neer-I. Admittedly, promotion on the posts of Junior Engineer-I are made from amongst Junior Engineers/S.S.Os./Meter Inspectors. Since there were three different feeder posts from which promotions were to be made, the appellant themselves fixed the respective quotas. 34 per cent of the posts were to be filled up by direct recruitment from the open market from amongst diploma holders. 33 per cent of the posts were to be filled up by diploma holders linemen already working with the appellant. Another 33 per cent of the posts were to be filled up from amongst non-diploma holders linemen/Meter Readers who had put in 10 years of service.

3. In order to make promotions, as integrated seniority list of persons working in three categories of feeder posts was drawn up and it was from this seniority list that promotions were made and the quota system was not adhered to in view of the decision of this Court in Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Ravinder Kumar Sharma & Ors.1. It is also stated by the appellant that 33 per cent quota, meant for non-diploma holders, was quashed by this Court by its judg­ment dated 30th of January, 1987 in Punjab State Electricity Board v. Sukhdev Raj Sharma & Ors.2. It was after this judgment that the re­cruitment rules were modified and it was provided that the posts of Junior Engineer-I would be filled up, not on the basis of quota, but on the basis of integrated seniority-cum-merit.

4. The respondent was promoted as Junior Engineer-I in 1990 and has been continuing on that post without being paid salary for that post or without being promoted on regular basis. It was in this situation that the respondent approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal, as pointed out earlier, allowed the claim petition with the direction that the respondent shall be paid salary for the post of Junior Engi­neer-I and shall also be considered for promotion on regular basis on the basis of quota fixed for non-diploma holders with 10 years of service. Admittedly, the respondent is the senior­most person in the cadre of non-diploma holders and has also put in 10 years of service.

5. The decision in Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Ravinder Kumar Sharma & Ors. (supra) was over-ruled by this Court in T. Muruge­san & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.3. It was on this decision that the Tribunal placed reliance and came to the conclusion that the promotions had still to be made on the basis of quota fixed for three different feeder categories and not on the basis of integrated senior­ity particularly as the classification on the basis of “educational qualification” was held to be valid by this Court.

6. Having regard to these facts, we are of the view that the Tribunal was fully justified in ordering that the respondent shall be promoted on the basis of “quota” fixed for non-diploma holders with 10 years of service and not on the basis of integrated seniority. The Tribunal was also justified in ordering payment of salary to the respondent for the post of Junior Engineer-I with effect from 1990 when he was made to work on that post. It is true that the respondent, to begin with, was promoted to stop-gap arrangement as Junior Engineer-I but that by itself would make no difference to his claim of salary for that post. If a person is put to officiate on a higher post with greater respon­sibilities, he is normally entitled to salary of that post. The Tribu­nal has noticed that the respondent has been working on the post of Junior Engineer-I since 1990 and promotion for such a long period of time cannot be treated to be a stop-gap arrangement.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Shreedaran Chandra Ghosh v. State of Assam & Ors.4. as also on State of Haryana v. S.M. Sharm