PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. versus GURMAIL SINGH

Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 868 · Decided: 22-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2008] 6 S.C.R. 868 
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. 
v. 
GURMAIL SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No. 2898 of 2008) 
APRIL 22, 2008 
[S.S. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Fundamental Rule 22(1)(a} - Principle of stepping up of 
C pay - Applicability of - Conditions of service - Scheme for 
time bound promotion to higher scale of pay- Circulars issued 
by Appellant-Board - Employees given the option to opt for 
one or the other induction post - Board did not release revised 
LDC scale to Respondent because of his promotion as UDC 
D - Respondent had opted for UDC as his induction post - Writ 
petition filed by Respondent allowed by High Court - On 
appeal, held: Respondent might have made a mistake in 
giving a wrong option but in implementation of the policy 
decision of the Board, Respondent was receiving amount far 
E less than that received by his juniors - Though order of the 
Board cannot be said wholly illegal and without jurisdiction 
warranting interference at the hands of High Court, but, 
Respondent directed to be put at the same scale of pay from 
the same day which was being paid to the employee next below 
F him in the post of LDC - Electric Supply Act, 1948 - Punjab 
State Electricity Board Ministerial Services (Class Ill) 
Regulations, 1985 - Constitution of India, 1950 -Art.142. 
G 
H 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Constitutional 
scheme of equality - Held: Cannot be applied in illegality 
A scheme for grant of time bound promotion to a 
higher scale of pay was formulated by the Appellant-
Board wherefor a circular was issued on 23-4-1990. By 
circular dated 3-10-1990, pay scales of the Lower Division 
868 
. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. v. 
869 
GURMAIL SINGH 
). 
Clerks (LDCs) was revised w.e.f. 1.1.1986. In continuation A 
of the circular dated 3-10-1990, the Board issued a memo 
dated 7-10-1992 whereby it was clarified that the LDCs 
who had been promoted as Upper Division Clerks (UDCs) 
would not be given the revised scale of LDCs. Another 
circular was issued by the Board on 18-7-1994 directing B 
""' 
that the LDCs promoted as UDCs would not be given any 
option to decide UDC/LDC as their induction post, but 
some relaxation may be given while considering 
individualcases who had been promoted after 1-1-1986. 
Yet another Circular was issued on 31-10-1995 in terms c 
whereof, it was clarified that for grant of time bou.nd 
promotional scheme, an employee was entitled for benefit 
of one induction post only during his whole service. 
.. 
. 
Respondent who had been promoted as UDC w.e.f. 
5-7"1986 made. representation to the Board stating that D 
he had not been released revised LDC scale because of 
the promotion, as such LDCs junior to him were getting 
higher scale than him. By letter dated 29-1 ~1996, he opted 
for UDC as his induction .post, stating that he had 
completed 9 years of service as UDC on 4-7-1995 and 
E 
therefore prayed that.he be given 9 years time bound scale 
of UDC from 5-7-1995 and his salary be also settled 
accordingly. Appellaht-Board rejecte~ the representation 
of Respondent. Respondent filed writ petition questioning 
the legality and/or validity of the said order which was 
F 
.-'! 
allowed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
' 
··. Partly allowing the. appeal, the Court 
, 
HELD:1.1. Representations had been received from 
various employees in response to the Circular dated 18-
G 
7-1994 opting for retaining the post of LDC as induction 
post, vis-a-vis the hardship which would be faced by them. 
Each such representation had been considered on its own 
merits. Also another circular was issued in 1992 with a 
view to remove the anomaly between scales of pay of LDC 
H 
870 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 
A and UDC. The option granted, however, was in respect of 
those who had been promoted before 1.1.1986. No such 
option was granted for those who had been promoted 
after 1.1.1986. It may seem unfortunate but that was the 
legal position. This Court would, however, assume that 
B despite absence of such a circular, the employees could 
give an option on their own. Such an option could be 
exercised even while making a representation for the 
purpose of consideration of the Board on the ground of 
hardship. Unfortunately, Respondent thought it fit to opt 
c for the post of UDC as his induction post. [Paras 21, 22, 
23] [884-A-E] 
1.2. An employee given the option to opt for one or 
the other induction post or one

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