TARSEM SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 452 · Decided: 12-07-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, YOGESHWAR DAYAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
TARSEM SINGH AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
JULY 12, 1994 
(KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.] 
Service Law-Punj-1b Labour Department (State Service Class- III) 
Rules 196~Rule B(J)(a)(i}-Post of 'Labour lnspecto,-Promotion ofmin-
isteiial staff-Whether Superintendents' in pay-scale of Rs.350-450 can seek 
"promotion" to post of labour inspector having pay-scale of Rs. 200-450. Sug-
gestion made forrevision of Rule 8( 1 )( a)(i). 
Respondents were promoted to the post of Assistant in the Punjab 
Labour Department in 1975 and 1977 respectively. Appellant joined the 
department as Stenographer in 1976. Re-spondents were senior to the 
D appellants in the cadre of Assistant/Stenographer. Respondents were fur-
ther promoted to the post of Superintendent in 1988. The appellants were 
promoted to the post of Labour Inspector Grade I under Rule 8(l)(a)(i) 
in 1991. The respondents challenged the promotion of the appellants 
before the High Court on the ground that the post of Superintendent held 
E 
by them, was a ministerial post and as such they being ministerial 
employees were entitled to be promoted to t~.e post of Labour Inspect~r . 
earlier to the appellants. 
F 
G 
The question for consideration was whether the Superintendents in • 
the pay-scale of Rs. 350-450 (revised Rs. 2000-3500) can seek "promotion" 
to the post of Labour Inspector having the pay-scale of Rs. 200-450 (revised 
Rs. 1500-2600). The High Court answered the question in the alfermative. 
This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgments of the High 
Court. 
Allowing appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The language of Rule 8(l)(a)(i) of the Punjab Labour 
Department (State Service Class-III) Rules 1969 on the face of it is decep-
tively ambiguous. There is no indication in the rule as to how and in what 
manner the promotions of such a large number of ministerial employees (16 
H cadres) to the cadre of labour inspector is to be regulated. (456-E; 457-A) 
452 
TARSEM SINGHv. STATE OF PB. 
453 
1.2 Only those ministerial employees are eligible for promotion A 
under Rule 8(l)(a)(i) who are in the pay-scale which is equal or.lower than 
the pay scale of the post of the Labour Inspector. The State Government 
was justified in issuing the instructions dated May 5, 1991 to the effect that 
promotions to the posts of Labour Inspector Grade-II and Grade-I from 
the ministerial cadre shall be from the incumbents holding the posts of B 
lower scales or the same scale and the persons holding posts carrying 
higher scale of pay shall be deemed to have forfeited their right to be 
considered for promotion to the rank of Labour Inspector Grade-I. It is, 
therefore, justifiable to hold that when an Assistant/Stenographer accepts 
promotion to the post of Superintendent he would be deemed to have 
foregone his option to be considered for the post of Labour Inspector. 
C 
[457-E-F; 458-C-D] 
1.3 The State Government is requested to reconsider the whole 
question of promotion of ministerial employees to the post of Labour 
Inspector afresh. It would be advisable to revise Rule (8)(l)(a)(i) by 
proper application of mind. In case the post of Assistant/Stenographer D 
continues to be in the grade higher than that of Labour Inspector, it would 
be open to the State Government to exclude the same as feeder category 
for appointment as Labour Inspector by way of promotion under Rule 
S(l)(a)(i) of the Rules. [459-A-B] 
1.4 In the instant case, since the post of Assistant/Stenographer has 
always been considered to be a lower post than that of the Labour Inspec-
tor, this court is not inclined to interfere with the promotion of the 
appellants to the post of Labour Inspector. [ 459-A] 
CIVIL APPELLANTE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3335-
36 of 1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.2.93 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in L.P.A.Nos. 6 & 7 of 1992. 
E 
F 
P.P. Rao, Anant Vijay Palli, Atul Sharma and Ms. Rina Agarwal for G 
Mrs. Rekha Palli for the Appellants. 
D.V. Sehgal, Bairam Gupta and A.K. Mahajan for the Respondent 
Nos. 3 & 4. 
R.S. Yadav and G.K. Bansal for the Respondent 
H 
454 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
c 
D 
E 
KULDIP SINGH, J. The recruitment and conditions of service of 
person; appointed to Class Ill Service in the Punjab Labour Department 
are regulated by the statutory rules called the Punjab Labour Department 
(State Service Class III) Rules, 1969 (t

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