LexCHIEF ENGINEER/OPERATION DAKSHINI HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ANR. versus MAUJ KHAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
, - * '~ ""\' [2009] 8 S.C.R. 321 CHIEF ENGINEER/OPERATION DAKSHINI HARYANA A BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ANR. v. MAUJ KHAN & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3311 of 2008) MAY 06, 2009 B [S.S. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Service law: Conditions of service - Service rules providing that passing of departmental examination was c imperative for confirmation of service - Employee never appeared in the said examination - His entitlement to benefit of additional increment, which was applicable on completion of regular service - Held: Not entitled as his services were never confirmed and thus he was not in regular service - Rule D 13 of Manual of orders of the Haryana State Electricity Board. Respondent no. 1 was appointed directly in the cadre of UDC. The terms and conditions of the offer of appointment were that the emp~oyee would be E considered for confirmation against permanent vacant post after completion of two years probationary period and passing the Department Accounts Examination, and ~ failure to clear the examination within five successive chances held immediately after six months of joining the -- service of the Board would involve loss of appointment. F · The respondent-employee never appeared in the Departmental Examination. His services were not confirmed and he was disentitled to obtain the benefit of increment. G The Electricity Board issued a circular letter pursuant whereto all the employees were to be granted the benefit . of additional increment on completion of 8/18 years of 321 H 322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. A regular satisfactory service and higher standard pay scale on completion of 10/20 years or more regular satisfactory service and promotion to the next higher post.As all these benefits were denied to the respondent no.1, he filed a _suit for declaration with consequential B relief of mandatory injunction. The trial Judge, while declining the relief of grant of increments in the scale of pay, opined that failure to appear in the Departmental Accounts Examination would not stand in the way of the plaintiff from obtaining the benefit of additional increment c and/or higher scale of pay. The order of the trial court was upheld by the First appellate court and High Court. Hence the appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court D HELD: 1.1. The service of the employee was to be considered for confirmation only upon completion of the two years' probationary period as also passing of the Departmental Accounts Examin'ation. For the said purpose, only five successive chances were required to E be given to him to appear in the examination which were to be held after six months of his joining<of service. Rule 13 of the Manual of orders of the Haryana State Electricity Board provides for confirmation, grant of annual increment, retention in service, promotion etc. For the F purpose of obtaining any benefit in terms thereof, passing of the examination is imperative. In the event employee failed to pass the said examination within a period of three years of his appointment in the Branch, his increments falling due after the first two increments G from his first appointment, would be withheld until he passed the examination. Even after passing the examination, increment was to be granted prospectively and not retrospectively. The Rules further stipulated that failure to pass the examination would entail loss of his H appointment. The trial Judge as also the appellate Court, CHIEF ENGINEER/OPERATION DAKSHINI HARYANA BIJLI 323 VITRAN NIGAM LTD. v. MAUJ KHAN thus, rightly held that as the respondent no.1 did not pass A the Departmental Accounts Examination, he was not entitled to be confirmed in service. The Judges, however, committed a serious error in opining that the circular letter relating to grant of additional increment and/or higher standard pay scale would be applicable in the case of the 8 respondent no.1. (Paras 14 and 16] (330-E-H; 331-A-C, E- F] • 1.2. Although, neither the circular letter, in terms whereof the said benefits were to be granted, was· c brought on record nor the connected rule were placed before this Court, but, on a plain reading of the judgment of the trial Judge as also the first Appellate Court, it is - evident that the benefits could be conferred on the respondent no.1 only if he had completed the period D stipulated therein in regular service. Unless, the services of an employee are
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.