PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. versus JAGDEV SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 9 S.C.R. 1147 · Decided: 12-06-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 9 S.C.R. 1147 
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. 
A 
V. 
JAGDEV SINGH AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3977 of 2006) 
JUNE 12, 2008 
B 
y 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Service Law - Promotion - Suit seeking inuunction from 
promoting their juniors dismissed - First Appellate Court hold-
ing the plaintiffs entitled to promotion from the date their jun- c 
iors were promoted - Dismissal of Second Appeal - On ap-
peal, held: Order of High Court set aside as Office Orders! 
Circulars relied on by both the parties were not taken into con-
sideration by High Court - Matter remitted to High Court. 
Respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit claiming their pro-
D 
motion. They stated that their juniors had already been 
promoted on 23.5.1991 while they had qualified for the 
promotion on 19.11.1990. Trial Court dismissed the suit. 
First Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs were entitled 
to promotion from the date their juniors were promoted. E 
Second Appeal was dismissed upholding the Order of 
First Appellate Court. 
In appeal to this Court appellant-Board contended 
that the High Court while passing the judgment had not 
taken into consideration Circular No.4/18/81-IPPl5594 
F 
dated 27.4.1982 wherein instructions regarding determi-
nation of eligibility for promotion to higher posts were 
given. 
Respondents contended that the Regulations were G 
amended vide Office Order No. 6151Reg. 293 (Circular No. 
46/87) dated 15.10.87 and Office Order No. 67 4/Reg.-25/A/ 
' 
Vol.IV dated 5.10.89 (Circular No. 35/89) were not taken 
into consideration by the High Court. 
1147 
H 
1148 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Keeping in view the fact that certain office 
Orders/Circulars, relied on by both the parties were not 
considered by High Court, the impugned order of the High 
B 
Court is set aside and the matter remitted to it for consid-
eration on merits. The relevant Circulars and regulations 
including the amendments applicable to the facts of the 
)' 
case have to be duly considered. [Para 7] [1150-B & C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal NO. 
c 3977 of 2006 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.7.2003 of 
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in regular 
Second Appeal No. 1176 of 2001 
D 
Vivek Kishor, Ruchi Guar Nanda, Sangeeta Bharti and 
.; 
Raj iv Nanda for the Appellant. 
R.K. Kapoor, Mansi Dhiman and Anis Ahmed Khan for 
the Respondents. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. The appellant-Punjab State 
Electricity Board Ltd. (in short the 'Board') has questioned cor-
rectness of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge 
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the Second 
F Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908 (in short the 'CPC'). 
2. A suit was filed by the respondents-plaintiffs in the Court 
of Senior Sub-Judge, Patiala for declaration with consequen-
tial relief of permanent injunction. They claimed to be entitled to 
G be considered for promotion as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) 
in terms of the order dated 5.10.1989 passed by the Board 
being Technical Subordinates grade-I. Relief of permanent in-
" 
junction was claimed for restraining the Board and its function-
aries from promoting any Technical Subordinate Grade-I on the 
H basis of the departmental examination, as the plaintiffs were 
PUNJAB STATE ELC. BOARD LTD. v. JAG DEV 
1149 
SINGH & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
senior to private defendants, and had qualified in the depart-
A 
mental examination held on 15.5.1991. The examination was 
conducted on 26.3.1991. Certain employees who were juniors 
to the plaintiffs were promoted on 23.5.1991. These persons 
had passed the departmental examination on 19.11.1990. 
3. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. In appeal, the 
B 
First Appellate Court observed that the plaintiffs were entitled 
for promotion from the date their juniors were promoted as As-
sistant Engineer (Electrical) vide order dated 23.5.1991 with 
all consequential benefits. The Board questioned correctness 
of the decision by filing the Second Appeal which has been c 
dismissed by the impugned order holding that when the pro-
motion order was passed with regard to the private defendants, 
the plaintiffs were eligible for promotion and since the private 
defendants were juniors, the plaintiffs had acquired a right for 
~ 
consideration for promotion from t

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