HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. versus GULSHAN LAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 950 · Decided: 06-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 8 S.C.R. 950 
A 
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. 
, • 
V. 
GULSHAN LAL AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3336 of 2009) 
MAY 06, 2009 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 
~ 
Servici~ Law: 
c 
Equal pay for equal work - Public employment - Held: 
For holding public office, employee must possess requisite 
prescribed qualification, in absence whereof additional reliefs 
;-
cannot be granted to him on basis of judgment passed in 
earlier cases - Relief granted by competent courl is binding 
" . 
D on the employer, but, when in a subsequent litigation the 
absurd result emanating from cascading effect thereof 
becomes apparent before another courl and and it is found 
that the said judgment is illegal, by application of Arlicle 14 
E 
alone, similar relief cannot be granted - ConstitJtion of India, 
1950 - Arlicle 14. 
Promotion - Entitlement to - Held: Promotion cannot be 
.. 
claimed as a matter of right - If employee while working in a 
... ,.
F 
parlicular grade does not acquire experience of working 
therein, he cannot be promoted to the next higher grade when 
experience in the immediately below post forms part of 
essential qualification. 
G 
Doctrines - Doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' -
Applicability of - Held: Same or similar nature of work, by 
~
itself, does not entitle an employee to invoke the doctrine of 
~ .... 
equal pay for equal work - Qualification, experience etc. would 
be relevant for the said purpose. 
H 
950 
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. v. 
951 
GULSHAN LAL AND ORS. 
~ 
Maxims - Maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit" -
A 
Nobody should suffer owing to mistake on part of Court. 
Appellant has two thermal power plants, one at 
Faridabad and the other at Panipat. In view of alleged 
discrepancies in the scale of pay payable to holders of B 
the same post at the two plants, some employees at the 
.. '{ 
Faridabad plant viz. Anil Kapoor and others, filed suit 
claiming higher pay scale as paid to their counterparts in 
the Panipat plant. The suit was decreed. 
c 
After passing of the decree in the suit filed by Anil 
Kapoor and others, Respondents prayed for entitlement to 
higher pay scales, on the ground that they were senior 
to Anil Kapoor and others in rank/designation. The prayer 
D 
' .~ 
was allowed by the courts below. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Appellant is a State within the meaning of E 
Article 12 of the Constitution. For holding a public office, 
~· 
an employee must possess the requisite prescribed 
qualification, in absence whereof the additional reliefs 
~ 
could not have been granted to them relying on or on the 
F 
basis of the judgment passed in the earlier cases. 
Conditions of service of the employees of the appellants 
are governed by the statutory rules. Violation thereof is 
. 
impermissible in law. Whereas the appellants are bound 
by the doctrine of equality as envisaged under Article 14 G 
of the Constitution, it is also well-settled that unequals 
# •-4 
cannot be treated as equals. Herein, equality doctrine has 
been invoked only on the basis of relief granted in the 
case of Anil Kapoor. In Anil Kapoor's case, a writ petition 
H 
952 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. 
A was also filed for the purpose of grant of designation. The 
' 
same has rightly or wrongly been allowed. That would 
t 
not mean that equality can be claimed on the basis 
thereof which would lead to a wholly anomalous 
situation. Decree granted by a competent court of law is 
8 
no doubt binding on the employer. But, when in a 
subsequent litigation the absurd result emanating from 
the cascading effect thereof becomes apparent before 
"· 
another court and it is found that the said judgment is 
c illegal, it is well-settled, that by application of Article 14 
of the Constitution alone, similar relief should not be 
granted. In the present case, the cascading effect was that 
for all intent and purport, those who were above Anil 
Kapoor and others in the seniority list derived benefit 
D irrespective of the fact as whether they were qualified to 
hold the post and/or otherwise gained sufficient 
"' . 
experience for promotion to the post. [Para 27] [972-E-H; 
973-A-E] 
E 
2. It cannot be said that the right to obtain same 
remuneration would carry with it the designation also. 
Promotion to a higher post cannot be claimed as a matter 
of right. Before a person claims promotion, subject of 
... 
course to just exceptions, 

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