HARBANS SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 496 · Decided: 03-08-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HARBANS SINGH 
V. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
AUGUST 3, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.) 
Seroice Law: 
Punjab Law and Legislative Depa1tment Provincial Seroice Class Ill 
C Rules, 1951-Promotion--Dichotomy of Technical and non-technical 
posts-Effect on-Directions to State Govemment. 
D 
E 
F 
The appellant joined as a clerk in the Department of Legal and 
Legislative Affairs, State of Punjab in June, 1965. He was promoted as an 
Assistant on August 13, 1974. The 3rd respondent was appointed as Clerk 
in another Department. When a vacancy of Assistant arose and was 
notified, 3rd respondent had applied for the post and was appointed on 
August 22, 1974 and had joined on September 17, 1974. The Punjab Law 
and Legislative Department Provincial Service Class III Rules, 1951 was 
in vogue at the date of the respective appointments. On that day, there was 
no distinction of a Technical and non-technical post. The Rules were 
amended in 1976, and dichotomy of technical and non- technical post was 
created and the 3rd respondent was working on technical side. When the 
vacancy of Legal Assistant arose, the appellant was eligible for considera-
tion. He claimed his promotion by virtue of his seniority in the Depart-
ment. 3rd respondent came to be appointed on May 20, 1977 as a Legal 
Assistant. 
The appellant made a representation to the Government, and it 
found that the appellant was eligible for promotion but was wrongly 
overlooked. Therefore, the appellant was appointed as Legal Assistant 
G w.e.f. May 20, 1977. A direction was given that if any future vacancy arises, 
the 3rd respondent would be accommodated. A Review Petition filed by the 
3;:d respondent was dismissed, and he tiled a writ petition in the High 
Court which was allowed by a single Judge and on appeal it was confirmed 
by the Division Bench. Hence this appeal. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
496 
HARBANS SINGH v. STATE 
497 
HELD : 1. At the time when the Punjab Law and Legislative Depart-
A 
ment Provincial Service Class III Rules were in vogue, there was no 
distinction between technical and non-technical Assistants. It could also 
be seen that admittedly the appellant passed his LL.B (two years) course 
in 1973 and 3rd year Course in 1974. By 1977, he had already had two years 
experience on legal side. By fortuitous circumstance, the 3rd respondent 
was working on the technical side while the appellant was continuing on 
non-technical side. For no fault on his part a dichotomy for consideration 
of the respective claims of the appellant and the 3rd respondent was made 
and the 3rd respondent came to be preferred when vacancy had arisen in 
1977. Therefore, the Government was right in reconsidering the matter in 
January, 1981 and in giving promotion to the appellant as a Legal Assis-
tant and the consequential benefits. [498-B; G-H; 499-A] 
B 
c 
2. Since the appellant as well as the 3rd respondent have been further 
promoted as Dy. Legal Remembrancers and both of them have been 
continuing as such, justice and equity would need to mould the relief and 
be worked out by giving appropriate direction to the Government. The D 
Government is, therefore, directed to create a supernumerary post of Dy. 
Legal Remembrancer and till the third respondent retires from service or 
a super- numerary post of legal assistant must be created till date he was 
promoted as Dy. Legal Remembrancer, as the case may be and that he 
would continue in the post. As regards the appellant is concerned, since E 
the Government itself had found him to be eligible and was appointed w.e.f. 
May 20, 1977 i.e. the date on which the third respondent was promoted, it 
must be deemed that the appellant was duly promoted w.e.f. that date and 
he is entitled to all consequential benefits. [499-A-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7412 of F 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.93 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in L.P.A.No. 447of1993. 
Ujjagar Singh, Ms Naresh Bakshi and Davender for the Appellants. G 
Sumant Batra and Ashok K. Mahajan for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
498 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
We have heard the learned counsel on both sides. The appellant 
joined as a clerk in the Department of Legal and Legislative Affairs, State 
of Punjab in June, 1965. He was promoted as an Assistant on August 13, 
1974. Ajit Lal Arora, 3rd respondent w

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