TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 961
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar Vij had initially joined the services of the State of Punjab, Department of Irrigation as Tracer in 1949. He was thereafter promoted as a Draftsman in the year 1950. He was further promoted as Divisional Head Draftsman, some time in the year 1962. Thereafter, he was transferred in the services of the Board. There also, he earned promotion as Circle Head Draftsman and then as the Assistant Design Engineer. Regular promotion to respondent No.1 on the post of Asstt. Design Engineer in Punjab Service of Engineers (II) was granted with retrospective effect from 1.6.1976. Finally, on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31.1.1987. Even though, respondent no.1 had earned several promotions, while in service, he still complained of stagnation in service as he was not able to earn further promotion. This was the cause for triggering off the instant litigation. 3. Brief history giving rise to this litigation is as under :- 4. State of Punjab was of the opinion that there existed stagnation amongst various cadres of regular employees. Pursuant thereto, an Office Order was issued by the Punjab State Electricity Board (for short 'PSEB') on 23.4.1990, adop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e referred to as 'Order of 1990') specifying the promotional scales for Assistant Engineers and the conditions precedent for eligibility thereof, adopted by the Board. 7. The relevant part of the said Order of 1990, is reproduced here in below: "2. The above higher scales will only be available to the directly recruited Assistant Engineers as per regulation. (emphasis supplied by us) 7-A(i) read with regulation-9 of PSEB, Service of Engineers(Electrical)Regulation-1965 7-A(i) read with Regulation-9 of PSEB, Service of Engineers (Civil) Regulations - 1965 The cases of Assistant Engineers appointed by promotion as per provisions of the Regulation 7-A(ii) read with Regulation - 10 of the Regulations ibid will be governed by Guidelines circulated vide Secretary Finance Officer Order No. 197/PRC/FIN-1988 dated 23.04.1990. Note: The departmental (Technical Subordinate and Drawing Staff) who while in service of the Board have been promoted to the post of AE(Electrical) (Civil) against quota reserved for promotion from amongst them under Regulation 7-a(ii)read with Regulation 10 (7) of the PSEB Service of Engineers (Electrical) Regulations-1965/Regulation 7-(A)ii) read....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....1's representation was considered at length by the Board but was decided against him on 22.8.2003 which was again challenged by respondent No.1 before the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court vide the impugned judgment and order passed on 6.12.2004 allowed respondent No.1's Writ Petition whereby and whereunder the order dated 22.8.2003, passed by the Board was set aside with further direction to grant to the said respondent the next higher pay scale after completion of 16 years of service. It is this order which is being assailed by the Board before us. 12. According to respondent No.1, since he had completed requisite length of service of 16 years on the post of Assistant Design Engineer, thus had become entitled for the higher pay scale. It appears, he took the cue for filing the 2nd Writ Petition on the strength of orders passed by the High Court in another petition filed by other employee, as mentioned here in below. 13. It is pertinent to mention here that one of such employees Rajinder Singh Patpatia had also independently filed C.W.P.No. 9162 of 1994, which was allowed on 26.8.1999 by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of review petition. It has been contended by them that stagnation would be applicable at all stages and to all the employees, who have not been granted promotion, otherwise the very purpose of the word 'stagnation' would stand defeated. 17. They have also submitted before us that there was no question of granting promotion to them but the actual relief on the strength of the order/circular which could have been granted to the employees was stepping up, upgradation/ revision of the pay scale without being actually promoted to next higher post. In other words, they have contended that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and the appeals being devoid of merits and substance, deserve to be dismissed. 18. As mentioned herein above while granting relief to respondent no.1, Division Bench has placed reliance on the earlier Division Bench judgment rendered in the case of Rajinder Singh Patpatia, whereby and whereunder the Board's Writ Appeal was dismissed and the order dated 26.8.1999 passed by Learned Single Judge was confirmed. Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2393 of 2002 was dismissed on 15.2.2002 and a Review Petition filed by the Board also came to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e parties thereto. The statement contained in the order other than on points of law would be binding on the parties and the court or tribunal, whose order was under challenge on the principle of judicial discipline, this Court being the Apex Court of the country. No court or tribunal or parties would have the liberty of taking or canvassing any view contrary to the one expressed by this Court. The order of Supreme Court would mean that it has declared the law and in that light the case was considered not fit for grant of leave. The declaration of law will be governed by Article 141 but still, the case not being one where leave was granted, the doctrine of merger does not apply. The Court sometimes leaves the question of law open. Or it sometimes briefly lays down the principle, may be, contrary to the one laid down by the High Court and yet would dismiss the special leave petition. The reasons given are intended for purposes of Article 141. This is so done because in the event of merely dismissing the special leave petition, it is likely that an argument could be advanced in the High Court that the Supreme Court has to be understood as not to have differed in law with the High Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....des that only such persons as have been promoted under Regulation 7(a)(ii) read with Regulation 10(4) shall be treated as direct recruits. In other words, it does not apply to the promotees irrespective of their academic qualifications nor they can be treated at par with the direct recruits. There was a purpose of treating them so, otherwise, it would have the effect of violating the constitutional mandate contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, on the premise that unequals have been treated as equals. It is with that intention, to avoid criticism and future litigation that such persons who possessed qualifications for direct recruitment and could be promoted against the posts falling vacant, would become entitled to claim the benefit. Since respondent no.1 did not fall in this category, obviously, he was not entitled to the higher scale. 25. Thus, there appears to be no illegality committed by the Board in rejecting respondent no.1's representation. So, in our considered opinion, the High Court has clearly erred in setting aside and quashing the same. Critical examination of the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court completely ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aspect of the matter specially the interpretation of the order of 1990 read with the Regulations was not properly and reasonably appreciated by the Division Bench. In this regard, it is necessary to quote the stand of the appellant-Board right from the very beginning when it had proceeded to reject the representation of respondent no.1. 30. The relevant portion of the reason of the Board so assigned to reject the respondent's representation is reproduced here in below : "in view of the principles/features enunciated in the scheme for grant of time-bound placement into the promotional/devised promotional scale after 9/16 years of regular service as introduced on the PSEB pattern, the case of Diploma Holder SDOs does not fall within the ambit of grant of 1st and 2nd Time-bound Promotional Scale after completion of 9/16 years regular service as admissible to the directly recruited Degree Holder AEs and departmental employees (Technical Subordinate and Drawings Staff) who have been promoted on the basis of the AMIE/Degree in Engineering against their share quota on the PSEB pattern." The aforesaid reasoning of the Board entirely rests on the Order of 1990 and the Regulations ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y v. IRC (1926) AC 37 at p.52, where he observed, 'a statute is designed to be workable and the interpretation thereof by a court should be to secure that object unless crucial omission or clear direction makes that end unattainable. 35. The aforesaid observations make it abundantly clear that the courts will, therefore, reject the construction which is likely to defeat the plain intention of the legislature even though there may be some inexactitude in the language used. If the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation should be avoided. 36. In view of this, to attain the fruitful results of the Order of 1990 we have to give it a meaningful and proper construction which would achieve the object for which it was passed, rather than to give a narrower construction which may defeat the very purpose of passing the said order. 37. In somewhat similar circumstances, a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in the case of M.V. Joshi v. M.U. Shimpi AIR 1961 SC 1494 = 1961 (3) SCR 986 eloquently said as under : ".... But these rules do not in any way affect the fundamental principles of interpretat....