H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD versus SHRI K.R. GULATI

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 502 · Decided: 03-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD 
v. 
SHRI K.R. GULATI 
FEBRUARY 3, 1998 
B 
[S.·SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion 
C (Regulations) for Ministerial Employees of the Board, 1972: Promotion-
Substantive Junior Scale Stenographer-Promoted on adhoc basis to the 
post of Head Clerk-18 Posts of Junior scale Stenographers upgraded to 
Senior scale Stenographers-Departmental Promotion Committee holding 
him unsuitable for the post of Senior Stenographer on the ground that he has 
lost touch in stenography-Tribunal's direction to treat him as promoted 
D with retrospective effect with all consequential benefits-On appeal, held, 
the respondent being a substantive Junior Scale Stenographer, entitled to be 
considered for promotion to the post of Senior scale Stenographer-The 
Departmental Promotion Committee erred in holding him unsuitable merely 
on the ground that he had lost touch in stenography-Direction of the 
E Tribunal is wholly without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law-Constitution 
of India; Articles 14 and 16. 
The respondent initially joined tlie Public Works Department as a 
Clerk and was subsequently appointed and confirmed on the post of Steno-
typist. On the constitution of the appellant-Board the Department of Multi 
F Purpose Project & Power was closed. The said Board took over the services 
of all the erstwhile employees of the Department on fresh contract. The 
K 
appellant-Board issued an offer of appointment to the respondent, which 
he accepted and became an employee of the appellant-Board as Junior Scale 
Stenographer. Subsequently he was promoted on adhoc basis to the post of 
G Head Clerk.In the meantime 18 posts of Junior Scale Stenographers were 
upgraded to Senior scale Stenographers, but respondent was not considered 
for the upgraded post of Senior Stenographer. 
Aggrieved, he filed a writ petition and the High Court held that the 
respondent should be considered for promotion to the post of Senior 
H Stenographer. However, the Departmental Promotion Committee taking the 
502 
H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. K.R. GULA TI 
503 
view that the respondent has Jost touch with Stenography and typing, did not A 
recommend his case for the post of Senior Scale Stenographer. The 
respondent filed a contempt petition which was dismissed. The second contempt 
petition filed by the respondent with others also stood dismissed. The 
respondent then approached the Tribunal which directed the appellant-Board 
to treat the respondent as having been promoted as Stenographer w.e.f. B 
31.5.1996 with all consequential benefits on the ground that the respondent 
being the holder of the post of Steno-typist on substantive basis was entitled 
to be considered for promotion in his own stream; since an employee junior 
to the respondent was promoted to the post of stenographer, respondent would 
be entitled to consequential benefits above him. 
Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the appellant-Board has filed 
the present appeal, 
c 
On behalf of the appellant-Board it was contended that the Tribunal 
could not have given a direction to the Board to promote the respondent w.e.f. 
31.5.1996 when the Board itself was not in existence on that date; the D 
Tribunal· erred in issuing the impugned directions in the absence of State 
Government and the junior employees being made party to the proceedings; 
when the resP.ondent has accepted the post of Lower Division Clerk and 
having been promoted to the post of Head Clerk, there is no infringment of 
his rights in not considering him for the upgraded post of Senior 
Stenographer. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. In the impugned order the direction of the Tribunal to treat 
the respondent as having been promoted as a Stenographer with effect from 
31st May, 1966 is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as such a direction F 
->< 
could not have been given to the Board when the Borad itself was not in 
existence on that date. The respondent was an employee of the state 
Government but it was not a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal. 
The aforesaid direction was given since an employee junior to the respondent 
in his earstwhile post of steno-typist got promotion to the post of Stenographer G 
and he was also not a party to the proceedings. A cause of action which arose 
on 31.5.1966 could not have been assailed before the Tribunal by filing an 
application in t

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