STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus MAQBOOL AHMAD

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 375 · Decided: 25-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

. 
~ 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
MAQBOOL AHMAD 
AUGUST 25, 2006 
[C.K. THAKKER AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.) 
B 
Service Law: 
Selection grade and supertime scale-Granting of-Assistant Engineer c 
selected through common selection-Appointed in Irrigation Department-
Later joined Public Works Department-Claim for selection grade and 
supertime scale-Reji1sal on the ground that he did not put in required years 
of service from the date he joined PWD-Held, officer having been selected 
through a common selection it would be immaterial whether he continues to 
work in cadre of Ass/I. Engineer either in Irrigation Department or in P WD- D 
There 1rns no reason to deprive him of the benefits to which he was otherwise 
entitled-UP. Government Order dated 15.10.1968. 
Respondent was selected as an Assistant Engineer through a common 
selection held by the UPPSC in the year 1970. He opted for Irrigation 
Department. In the year 1977, with the approval of the UPPSC, he joined E 
the Public Works Department. He applied to the authorities stating that 
since he was not promoted as Executive Engineer, as per policy of the 
Government, he was entitled to selection grade from the year 1986 after 
completion of 16 years and supertime scale from 1988 after completion 
of 18 years of regular service. He relied on the U.P. Government Order F 
dated 15.10.1968. His claim was rejected on the ground that he joined the 
P.W.D. in the year 1977 and since he got promotion to the post of Executive 
Engineer in the year 1995 i.e. before completion of 18 years from the year 
,• 
1977, he was not entitled to supertime scale. The respondent filed a writ 
petition before the High Court and contended that two officers who were 
selected after him and were not initially allocated to P.W.D. but were sent G 
to the said Department at a subsequent stage, were held entitled to such 
benefit. The writ petition was allowed and the authorities were directed 
to give the respondent the benefit. Aggrieved, the State Government filed 
the present appeal. 
375 
H 
376 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The policy decision to grant selection grade and 
supertime scale is based on equitable principle that if an employee does 
not get promotion, not because of his fault, but because there were no 
sufficient vacancies available, which resulted in his stagnation in the cadre 
B to which iie was initially appointed, it would be reasonable that he should 
not suffer and is allowed certain additional benefits. Therefore, the High 
Court was right in holding that it would be totally immaterial whether 
the employee continues to work in the cadre of Assistant Engineer either 
in Irrigation Department or in Public Works Department. The fact 
C remains that he could not be promoted because of non availability of 
promotional avenues and hence there was no reason to deprive him of 
selection grade or supertime scale to which he was otherwise entitled. 
1379-F-H; 380-A-BI 
1.2. There is an additional factor also in favour of the respondent. 
D It is not in dispute that along with the respondent, several other persons 
were also selected and appointed as Assistant Engineers. Some of them 
preferred Public Works Department, but were later transferred to 
Irrigation Department. It was stated by the respondent that those persons 
were junior to him and yet they were granted selection grade and 
E supertime scale in the Irrigation Department though they were initially 
appointed in the Public Works Department. Therefore, on that 
consideration also, the High Court was right and justified in allowing the 
claim of the respondent and in granting benefits in his favour. (380-C-E] 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3666 of2006. 
From the Final Order dated 22.4.2004 of the High Court of Judicature 
at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Writ Petition No. 8268 (S/B) of 
1993. 
Arvind Verma, Rajeev Dubey and Kamlendra Mishra (for Jatinder 
G Kumar Bhatia) for the Appellants. 
Shail Kumar Dwivedi and G.V. Rao for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
C.K. THAKKER, J. Delay condoned. 
STATE OF U.P. v. MAQBOOL AHMAD [C.K. Tl-IAKKER, .I.] 
377 
... 
Leave granted. 
A 
This appeal is filed against an order dated April 22, 2004 passed by the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No. 
8268 of 1993. 
The facts in nutshell may now be stated. 
B 
Pursuant to com

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