A
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR.
B
v.
V.N.SHARMA
SEPTEMBER 5, 1994
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]
SeTVice law: Punjab State Ele~tricity Board (Revised Pay) Regulations,
1988.
C
Regulations 3, 8.-Promotion to higher post-Fixation of pay in the
higher scale-/Jenefit of minimum of two increments-Regulations prospective
in nature-Persons promoted prior to the publication of the Regulations--
Held : Not entitled to such benefit.
· The Punjab State Electricity Board (Revised Pay) Regulations,
D 1988 came into force on 1st January, 1988 Regulation 8 provided for
fixation of pay on promotion, by giving benefit of two increments. The
regulations are prospective in nature.
Respondent, who was promoted prior to the publication of the
E
Regulations, claimed the benefit of two increments. On being denied, he
approached the High Court by way of a Wrii Petition. the ffigh Court
allowed the benefit. Hence this appeal by the Appellant Board.
Disposing of the appeal, this Court
F
HELD : 1.1. The Punjab State Electricity Board (Revised Pay)
Regulations, 1988 are prospective ~n operation and those who qualified and
promoted after the regulations have come into force alone are entitled to
two advance increments and not those who have been promoted earlier to
the regulations have come into force. The non obsta!1te clause and also
G regulation 3 clearly postulates that if there is any inconsistency, then the
regulation shall prevail over any other rules. Therefore, the High Court
was clearly in error in allowing the benefits to the respondent. [117-F, G]
1.2. However, since the respondent had already retired f('.om service
it is not necessary to interfere with the order passed by the High Court.
H
ITT~
116
-
PB.STATEELECfRICITYBOARDv. V.N.SHARMA
117
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6895 of A
1994.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.1.1994 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 3081 of 1993.
Sarup Singh and Ms. Kirti Mishra for the Appellants
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
B
The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is C
whether the respondent is entitled to two advance increments which were
granted by the High Court in Civil W.P. No. 3081of1993 dated January
31, 1994. The appellant made statutory regulations titled The Punjab State
Electricity Board (Revised Pay Regulations, 1988) Which have come into
force on 1st of January, 1988. As Rule 3 of the Regulations which says that D
in these regulations unless anything repugnant in the subject or context the
regulations have the overriding effect. Under Regulation 8 it is provided
fixation of the pay on promotion thus: Notwithstanding anything contained
in these regulations, in case of promotion to a higher post effected after
the date of publication of this order, the benefit of minimum two increments E
shall be given while fixing the pay in the scale of the higher post. The next
increment in the scale of higher post shall be allewed after the completion
of twelve months' qualifying service in that scale under the Rules. These
Regulations are prospective in operation and those who have been
qualified and promoted after the regulations have come into.. force alone
are entitled to two advance increments and not those who have been F
promoted earlier to the regulations have come to into force. The non
obstante clause and also regulation 3 clearly postulates that if there is any
inconsistency, then the regulation shall prevail over any other rules. In this
statutory background the High Court is clearly in error in allowing the
benefits to the respondent. But however since respondent had already G
retired form service we decline to interfere with the order passed by the
High Court. The Civil Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
G.N.
Appeal disposed of.
Lex