PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR. versus BAL KRISHAN SHARMA & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 547 · Decided: 23-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
547
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR.
v.
BAL KRISHAN SHARMA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6995 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 23, 2021
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil)
Recruitment Regulations, 1965: Time bound benefit – PSEB passed
an office order on 19.07.1989 for regular employees introducing a
scheme to allow a time bound benefit of higher scale on their
completion of 9/16 years of services – On 29.03.1991, another office
order was passed upgrading 20% of the cadre posts of Junior
Engineer-II (Civil) in the scale of Rs.1640/3200 (revised) to that of
Junior Engineer-I (Civil) in the scale of 1800/3500 w.e.f. 01.01.1986
– Thereafter, in continuation, consolidation and supersession of
orders dated 19.07.1989 and  29.03.1991, the PSEB issued office
order dated 23.04.1990 introducing scheme to allow “time bound
benefit of promotional scales” after completion of 9/16 years of
regular service in PSEB w.e.f. 01.01.1986 subject to certain
conditions – Respondents (original petitioners) in the writ petition
prayed for granting the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4250 with initial
start of Rs. 2400/- per month with effect from 01.01.1986 and further
to grant the pay scale of Rs. 3000-5600 on completion of 16 years
of their services on the basis of office orders dated 19.07.1989,
29.03.1990 and 23.04.1990, however made no challenge to office
order dated 29.03.1990 in the petition, which was held to be
unenforceable by the High Court on the ground that it was not
published in the Gazette as required under s.79 of the Electricity
(Supply) Act, 1948 – Contention raised by the respondents was that
office order dated 29.03.1990 was issued in the disguise of
upgrading the respondents posts, which in fact was issued for
creating new posts of promotion, so as to deprive the respondents
the benefit of office order dated 23.04.1990; that issuance of such
order was changing the conditions of service of the respondents
and, therefore, the same was required to be published in the gazette
as required under s.79 of the 1948 Act – Held: Office order dated
29.03.1990, which was issued only for upgrading 20% of  the posts
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 547
547
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
548
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
of Junior Engineer-II (Civil), in the higher pay scale, could neither
be construed as creating new posts of promotion nor could it be
construed as changing the conditions of service of the Junior
Engineers (Civil) – The said upgradation merely conferred a
financial benefit by raising the pay scale of the Junior Engineers
(Civil), without there being advancement to a higher position, and
without there being change in the duties and responsibilities – There
was also nothing on record to suggest that the Junior Engineers
had to undergo any process of selection for getting the benefit of
the said office order – Hence, it could not be said that the PSEB
had robbed the respondents of their legitimate right of promotion
by issuing the said office order or that such order could not have
been issued without corresponding amendment in the Regulations
– In view of Regulation 17 of the said Regulations, the PSEB was
authorised to fix the scales of pay of the posts specified therein
including that of the Junior Engineers, from time to time – PSEB
having already framed the Regulations of 1965 in exercise of powers
conferred under s.79(c) of the Act, and the Regulations having also
been published in the Official Gazette, there was no need for the
PSEB to notify office order dated 29.03.1990 – An employee could
be said to be suffering from stagnation as per the office order dated
23.04.1990 only if he possessed the requisite qualification for the
next higher post and was unable to get the higher post on account
of non availability of such post – Thus, the claim of the respondents
based on office order dated 23.04.1990, for getting the pay scale
of the next higher post of Assistant Engineer i.e.  Rs. 2200-4250 on
the completion of 9 years of their service and the pay scale of another
next higher post of the Executive Engineer i.e. Rs. 3000-5600 on
the completion of 16 years of their service, without assuming the
responsibilities of the said promotional posts, was misconceived.
Service law: Upgradation and Promotion – Difference
between – Held: There is a vast difference between the upgradation
and the promotion – Ordinarily upgradation of a post would involve
transfer of a post from lower to 

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