INDERJIT SINGH SODHI AND OTHERS versus THE CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2020] 11 S.C.R. 966 · Decided: 03-12-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

INDERJIT SINGH SODHI AND OTHERS
v.
THE CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 3837 of 2020)
DECEMBER 03, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil)
Regulations, 1965 –  Appellants, promoted from the post of Junior
Engineer, claimed time bound promotional scale while working as
Assistant Engineers – Allowed by Single Judge – Order set aside –
On appeal, held: Claim of the appellants was for time bound
promotional scale after completion of 9-16 years’ service only at
par with two juniors to them in the category of Assistant Engineer
(Civil) who were appointed by way of direct recruitment – Appellants
categorically admitted that the said persons were appointed by way
of direct recruitment – While appellants were promoted to the post
of Assistant Engineer in their term as per their seniority in the cadre
of Junior Engineer – Promotee employees are entitled to time bound
promotion scale in terms of the First Circular only – Second Circular
which was issued to grant time bound promotional scale to directly
recruited Assistant Engineers would not apply to the appellants as
they are instead covered by First Circular – No error in the order
passed by High Court.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The appellants were promoted to the post of
Assistant Engineers under Regulation 7(a)(ii) read with
Regulation 10 of the Civil Regulations. Shri Kirpal Singh Mangat
and Shri Raj Kumar Garg, who were junior to the appellants in
the category of Assistant Engineer (Civil) were appointed by way
of direct recruitment to such posts on the basis of their
qualifications under Regulation 7(a)(i) of the Civil Regulations.
Two sets of circulars were issued by the Punjab State Electricity
   [2020] 11 S.C.R. 966
966
Board for grant of time bound promotional scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986.
The circular dated 23.04.1990 is the First Circular. Circular dated
24.05.1990 is the Second Circular. The Second Circular was issued
to grant time bound promotional scale to directly recruited
Assistant Engineers. However, the promoted employees were
said to be entitled to time bound promotional scale as per the
First Circular itself. The said Second Circular was issued to
equally apply to the Civil and Electrical Branch of the Board.
The Note to the said Circular mentions that the Circular has been
issued under the Civil and Electrical Regulations. The claim of
the appellants was based upon the First Circular for 9/16 years’
time bound promotion scale though the appellants have referred
to the Second Circular in para 18 of the writ petition. The Second
Circular was not even annexed with the writ petition, however
the same has been annexed by two other appellants. There is no
challenge to the legality and validity of the Second Circular. Still
further, the appellants have never claimed that there should be
equal pay being members of the same cadre. The claim of the
appellants was for time bound promotional scale after completion
of 9-16 years’ service only at par with Kirpal Singh Mangat and
Raj Kumar Garg. The appellants were promoted within 9 or 16
years from their initial appointment, therefore, they are not
entitled to time bound promotional scale. Kirpal Singh Mangat
and Raj Kumar Garg were appointed by direct recruitment as
Assistant Engineer (Civil), whereas the appellants have been
promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). Hence, the
Second Circular would not be applicable to them. The promotee
employees are entitled to time bound promotion scale in terms
of the First Circular only. Hence, the appellants are not entitled
to claim any parity with Kirpal Singh Mangat and Raj Kumar Garg.
Some other employees have been granted benefit by virtue of
the orders passed by the High Court. However, the principle
laid down in the aforesaid judgments run counter to the
subsequent judgment of this Court in Krishan Kumar Vij. The
Special Leave Petition in many of these cases were dismissed
but such dismissals would not be a binding precedent for this
Court. The dismissal of special leave petitions is of no
consequence on the question of law. [Paras 5-9, 16-18][971-F;
972-A, G; 976-H; 977-A-B; 979-B-H]
INDERJIT SINGH SODHI v. THE CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANOTHER
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
968
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 11 S.C.R.
1.2 The appellants being only Diploma holders were
promoted under Regulation 7(a)(ii) read with Regulation 10.4 o

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