LexSECRETARY-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER, CHANDIGARH versus HARI OM SHARMA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SECRETARY-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER, CHANDIGARH A v. HAR! OM SHARMA AND ORS. APRIL 29, 1998 [S. SAGHIR AHMAD, K. VANKATASWAMI ANDS. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] B Service Law-Promotion-Feeder cadre-Quotas fixed for-Promotion made on the basis of integrated seniority list instead of making on quota basis-Validity of C Service law-Promotion-Stop gap arrangement-Employee continuing for a long period-But neither paid salary for that period nor considered for regular promotion-Direction by Tribunal for payment of salary and to consider him for regular promotion-Held valid Indian Contract Act, 1872: Section 23. Government service-Employee-Stop gap promotion-Continuing for a long period-Undertaking from employee that he would not claim salary of higher post or other benefits-Held contrary to public policy. D E In this case promotion to the post of Junior Engineer-I was being made from three different feeder posts. For promotion, quota was fixed for (1) direct recruitment from open market from amongst diploma holders; (ii) diploma holders line-man already working with the appellant; and (iii) non- diploma holders line man/meter readers who had put in ten years of service. F However, an integrated seniority list o·f persons from three cadres was drawn up on the basis of which promotions were made without adhering to the quota system. ( The respondent, a seniormost person in the cadre of n~n-diploma holders was promoted as Junior Engineer. However, he was n~ither paid G salary for that post nor was he considered for regular promotiqn. On the other hand, while promoting him on a stop gap arrangement, an un~ertaking was taken from him that he would neither claim promotion as of right nor would he claim any benefit pertaining to that post. The respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, H 99 100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R. A Chandigarh which directed that the respondent shall be paid salary for the post of Junior Engineer and shall also be considered for promotion on regular basis on the basis of quota fixed for non diploma holders with ten years of service. Against the decision of Tribunal an appeal was preferred before this Court. B Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. The Tribunal was fully justified in ordering that the respondent shall be promoted on the basis of "quota" fixed for non-diploma holders with 10 years of service and not on the basis of integrated seniority. It was also justified in ordering payment of salary to the respondent for the C post of Junior Engineer-I with effect from 1990 when he was made to work on that post. The respondent, to begin with, was promoted in stop-gap arrangement as Junior Engineer-I but that by itself would make no difference to his claim of salary for that post. If a person is put to officiate on a higher post with greater responsibilities, he is normally entitled to salary of that D post The Tribunal has rightly held that the respondent having been promoted as Junior Engineer-I, though in stop-gap arrangement , was continued on that post and, therefore he has a right to be considered for regular promotion. [102-E-HJ 2. An agreement that if a person is promoted to the higher post or put E to officiate on that post or, as in the instant case, a stop-gap arrangement is made to place him on the higher post, he would not claim higher salary or other attendant benefits would be contrary to law and also against public policy. It would, therefore, be unenforceable in view of section 23 of the Contract Act. [103-DJ p Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Ravinder Kumar Sharma & G Ors., [1986) 4 SCC 617, dissented from (Being already overruled). Purijab State Electricity Board v. Sukhdev Raj Sharma & Ors., JT (1987) 1 SC 333 and T. Murugesan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., It 993 J 2 sec 340, referred to. Shreedaran Chandra Ghosh v. State of Assam & Ors., (1996) 10 SCC 567 and State of Haryana v. S.M. Sharma & Ors., JT (1993) 3 SC 740, distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5546 of H 1995. .. , - ... SECY.-CUM-CHIEF-ENGG. v. HARi OM SHARMA [S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.] J OJ From the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.93 of the Central Administrative A Tribunal, Chandigarh in O.A. No. 433/CH/1993. Ujjagar Singh, G .C. Sharma and Naresh Bakshi for the Appellant. Sunil Gupta, Ms. Indu Malthora and Ms. Kavita Walia for the Respondents. B A.K. Mahajan (NP) for Respondent-Ex-
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.