BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD versus KRISHAN KUMAR VIJ & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 462 · Decided: 19-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
A 
B 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 462 
BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD 
v. 
KRISHAN KUMAR VIJ & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3439 of 2007) 
AUGUST 19, 2010 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
c 
Time-bound promotional scale - Entitlement to - Held: 
The Circular of the Authority and service Regulations provided 
for time-bound promotional scale only to directly recruited 
Assistant Engineers/Assistant Executive Engineers or to 
those who had acquired the requisite qualifications prescribed 
0 
for the direct recruitment - The order and the Regulations are 
not applicable to promotees irrespective of their academic 
qualification - Promotees cannot be treated at par with the 
direct recruits as the same would amount to violation of 
Arlie/es 14 and 16 of the Constitution - PSEB, Service of 
E Engineers (Electrical) Regulations, 1965/PSEB, Service of 
Engineers (Civil) Regulations, 1965 - Regulation 7(a)(i) rlw. 
Regulation 9 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arlie/es 14 and 
16 - Administrative Law - Public Policy. 
Interpretation of Statutes - Purposive construction - A 
F statute or an enacting provision must be so construed as to 
make it effective and operative - When the words of a statute 
are clear and unambiguous, the courl is bound to give effect 
to that meaning only which serves the cause and purpose 
irrespective of the consequences -
If there are two 
G interpretations, the narrower one which would fail to achieve 
the manifest purpose of the legislation, to be avoided. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
H 
462 
BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD v. KRISHAN 463 
KUMAR VIJ & ANR. 
Articles 136 and 141 -
Special Leave Petition -
A 
Dismissal of - At preliminary stage with non-speaking order 
- Held: Does not constitute a binding precedent - Precedent. 
Article 226- Writ petition before High Court filed belatedly 
- Held: Approach of High Court in condoning inordinate, long 
B 
and unexplained delay in a casual manner neither proper nor 
legal - Delay!Laches. 
The Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) issued an 
Office Order dated 23.4.1990 giving time-bound benefit of 
promotional scale. According to this Circular, the benefit C 
of first time-bound placement was to be available to an 
employee on completion of 9 years of regular service on 
the post and the second time bound promotional scale 
was to be available after completion of sixteen years of 
service. The Circular also provided that the employees 
D 
who did not fulfil the qualification/passing of examination 
essential for promotion to the next higher post; were also 
to be placed into the time-bound promotional/devised 
promotional scale. The above order was adopted by the 
appellant-Board. Thereafter on 24.5.1990, PSEB issued 
E 
another Order specifying the promotional scales for 
Assistant Engineers and the conditions precedent for 
eligibility thereof. The order also mentioned that the 
higher scales as specified in the Orders was to be 
available only to the directly recruited Assistant 
F 
Engineers as per Regulation 7 (a) (i) r/w Regulation 9 of 
PSEB, Services of Engineers (Electrical) Regulations, 
1965, and PSEB Services of Engineers (Civil) 
Regulations, 1965. 
Respondent No. 1 made several representations 
G 
claiming grant of time-bound promotional scale, stating 
that having completed 16 years of service, he was enti~led 
to the same. As the representations were not heeded to, 
he filed a writ petition. The High Court disposed of the 
H 
464 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 
A same, directing the appellant-Board to decide the 
representation by reasoned order. The representation 
was decided by the appellant-Board, against respondent 
No. 1. He again filed a writ petition. High Court allowed 
the petition and directed grant of next higher pay-scale 
s to the respondent. Therefore, the instant appeal was filed. 
Other appeals were also filed which involved the. same 
issue. 
The appellant-Board, interalia, contended that 
C respondent No. 1 did not fall in the category of stagnated 
employee as provided under Clause 2 of the Order dated 
24.5.1990; and that the writ petition filed by respondent 
No. 1 was belated and liable to be dismissed on the 
ground of delay and laches. 
D 
E 
Respondent No. 1 contended that the issue in 
question had already been decided by the High Court in 
favour of a similarly situated employee, which view was 
further approved by the Supreme Court, by dismissing 
the SLP challenging the order of the Court.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.