LexSOHAN SINGH SODHI versus PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SOHAN SINGH SODHI v. PUNJAB STA TE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PA TIALA MAY9, 2007 B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] Service Law: Promotion-Promotion of Lineman to Line Superintendent- C Discrimination in promotion between Engineering diploma holders linemen and non diploma holder linemen having same seniority list-Trial Court held that appellant could not have been discriminated against-Reversed by the High Court following the ruling of larger Bench of the Supreme Court in a similar matter-Affirmed by High Court-On appeal, Held: Parity in the pay D cannot be claimed when the educational qualification is different- Jurisdiction of the respondent-Board to lay down different scale of pay on the basis of educational qualification per se is not discrimination-Article 14 of the Constitution has no application in such a case-First Appellate Court rightly dismissed the claims of the incumbent and denied benefit to him by following the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court E over-ruling the decision of a Division Bench where junior to the incumbent was given such benefit-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14-State Electricity Act, I 948-ss. 12 and I 5. Appellant was appointed as a lineman and promoted to the post of Junior F Engineer though he was not holding a diploma in Engineering. One Ravinder Kumar who was also a non-diploma holder filed a suit questioning the purported discrimination in promotion of Lineman to Line Superintendent between diploma holder linemen vis-a-vis non diploma holder linemen. In that case, ultimately the matter came up before this Court wherein this Court observed that it has rightly been held by the High Court that the promotion of G defendants who were junior to the plaintiff from Line Man to the Line Superintendent is wholly bad and discriminatory and directed that the petitioner be deemed to have been promoted to the post of Line Superintendent from the date the said defendants had been promoted. Later, in a similar matter, a three-Judges Bench of this Court in P. Murugesan & Ors. v. State of Tamil H 250 SOHAN SINGH SODHI v. PUNJAB STA TE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PA TIALA 25 J Nadu & Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 340 wherein Punjab State Electricity Board & A Anr. Etc. v. Ravinder Kumar Sharma & Ors., was specially overruled relying inter alia on a decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors., [1974] 1 SCC 19. ln the present case, the appellant also claimed the same benefit. The Trial Court held that as both the plaintiff-appellant and Ravinder Kumar Sharma were non-diploma B holders and belongs to the same cadre, the appellant could not have been discriminated against. The First Appellate Court, however, relied on the decision of three Judges Bench of this Court in P. Murugesan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., set aside the judgment of Trial Court. Appeal filed against the order of the first appellate court was dismissed by the High Court. Hence, the present appeal. Appellant-employee contended that as Ravinder Kumar Sharma is junior to him, action on the part of the respondent-Board not to grant the same scale of pay to him is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The State Electricity Board has the power to frame regulations. If it can frame regulations, in absence of any regulations, issuance of executive orders is permissible in law. (Para 11) (255-D) c D Meghalaya State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Jagadindra Arjun, [2001) E 6 sec 446, relied on. 1.2. The jurisdiction of the Board to lay down different scales of pay for the employees on the basis of educational qualification per se is not discrimination. (Para 12) [255-E, F) State of Jammu and Kashimir v. Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors., [1974) 1 sec 19, followed. P. Murugesan and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., [1993) 2 SCC 340, relied on. 1.3. No doubt Ravinder Kumar was junior to the appellant but his case F G has become final due to the decision of this Court in Punjab State Electricity Board and Anr. etc. v. Ravinder Kumar Sharma and Ors. However, that decision has been overruled by a larger Bench of this Court. Hence, the appellant can get no benefit from the fact that his junior has been promoted. H 252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R. A Article 14 will have no application in such a case. (Para 14) (256-8, CJ State of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.