Supreme Court Denies Time-Bound Promotion to Promoted Assistant Engineers: Inderjit Singh Sodhi vs. Punjab State Electricity Board (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: December 3, 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 908

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, and Ajay Rastogi, JJ.

Can employees promoted to a higher post claim the same time-bound promotional benefits as those directly recruited to that post? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning Assistant Engineers of the Punjab State Electricity Board. The core issue was whether the promoted Assistant Engineers were entitled to the same time-bound promotional scales as their counterparts who were directly recruited. The bench comprised Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, and Ajay Rastogi.

Case Background

The appellants, who were initially Junior Engineers, were promoted to the position of Assistant Engineers within the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB). The PSEB’s service regulations provide for filling the post of Assistant Engineer through direct recruitment, promotion, or transfer. The appellants sought time-bound promotional scales, arguing parity with directly recruited Assistant Engineers who were junior to them. The Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) had issued circulars regarding time-bound promotional scales, with the first circular providing for time-bound promotions after 9 and 16 years of service and the second circular granting higher pay scales to directly recruited Assistant Engineers after 9 and 16 years of service. The promoted Assistant Engineers claimed that they should be treated at par with directly recruited Assistant Engineers for the grant of time bound promotional scales.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants filed writ petitions before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking time-bound promotional scales. A learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions. However, the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) filed intra-court appeals, which were allowed by the High Court, setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Krishan Kumar Vij & Anr (2010) 8 SCC 701, which had overturned a similar decision in favor of an Assistant Engineer in the Bhakra Beas Management Board. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil) Regulations, 1965.

✓ Regulation 7 of the Civil Regulations specifies that recruitment to the service of Assistant Engineers can be done through direct appointment, promotion, or transfer.

✓ Regulation 9 outlines the qualifications for direct appointment, requiring a BE in Civil Engineering or a diploma with 12 years of service for Section Officers.

✓ Regulation 10 provides for promotion of Sectional Officers with 10 years of experience, subject to a 30% cap on cadre posts.

The relevant extract of the Civil Regulations as quoted in the judgment are:

“7. Recruitment to the Service shall be made by the
Appointment Authority by any of the methods indicated below
as may be determined in each case: –
(a) In case of posts of Asstt. Engineers.
(i) By direct appointment as provided in Regulation 9
(ii) By Promotion as provided in Regulation 10
(iii) By transfer of an officer already in the service of a
Government or any other State Electricity Board or an
Undertaking of Government.”

“9. No Person shall be appointed as AE (Civil) on training by
direct appointment unless he has passed BE in Civil Engineering
from recognised Institution/Univ.(Equivalency as notified by the
Institution of Engineers Association of Indian Universities/
Pbi.Univers ity/Pbi.Univ. Calendar.)
PSEB Serving sectional officers (Civil) who possess ¾ years
diploma in Civil Engineering & have minimum 12 years qualifying
service as Sectional Officer (Civil) with satisfactory service record
shall also be eligible to apply for the post.”

“10.1 (a) Sectional Officers ( Civil) under the Board having
their record above average and with not less than 10 years
experience to their credit shall be eligible for appointment to
the service as Assistant Engineer, subject to the condition that
their number does not exceed 20% of the total number of
cadre posts of Assistant Engineers excluding the posts with
B.D.M.B ./B.C.B . and deputation posts or posts where PSEB
cannot directly post its officers i.e. Hydel /Design Directorate,
Chandigarh.
(b) Over and above this reservation, Sectional Officers
(Civil) with requisite service/experience may be considered for
additional vacancies of Assistant Engineers for field work
without any fixed percentage.”

The Punjab State Electricity Board also issued two circulars regarding time-bound promotional scales:

✓ The First Circular, dated 23.04.1990, provided for time-bound promotional scales after 9 and 16 years of service.

✓ The Second Circular, dated 24.05.1990, granted higher pay scales to directly recruited Assistant Engineers after 9 and 16 years of service.

Arguments

The appellants argued that since they were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer, they should be treated at par with directly recruited Assistant Engineers in terms of pay and time-bound promotional scales. They contended that they possessed the qualifications for direct recruitment as per Regulation 7 of the Civil Regulations. They also argued that the High Court had consistently taken the view that similarly placed promoted Assistant Engineers were entitled to time-bound promotional scales.

The respondents argued that the time-bound promotional scale was applicable to promotee officers only as per the First Circular, which stipulated that an employee is entitled to a promotional scale after 9 years of regular service and a second promotional scale after 16 years of service. They also contended that if an employee gets a normal promotion before completing 9 years of service, they would not be entitled to the first time-bound promotional scale. The respondents argued that the Second Circular was specifically for directly recruited Assistant Engineers.

The appellants also argued that in terms of Clause 2(iii) of the First Circular, an employee on completion of 23 years’ service is also entitled to the benefit s of the said Scheme in case he is not benefited from the Scheme of 9/16 years.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues but dealt with the core issue of whether the promoted Assistant Engineers were entitled to the same time-bound promotional scales as the directly recruited Assistant Engineers.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the promoted Assistant Engineers were not entitled to the same time-bound promotional scales as the directly recruited Assistant Engineers. The Court upheld the High Court’s decision, which had relied on the judgment in Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Krishan Kumar Vij & Anr (2010) 8 SCC 701.

The court observed that the First Circular was applicable to promoted employees, while the Second Circular was applicable to directly recruited employees. The court also noted that the appellants were promoted within 9 or 16 years of their initial appointment, therefore, they were not entitled to time bound promotional scale.

The Court clarified that the legal fiction created by the second circular which deemed certain promoted employees as direct recruits, applied only to those who had passed both parts of the AMIE examination and were promoted against posts reserved for that category.

The following authorities were viewed by the Court in the following manner:

✓ Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Rajinder Singh Patpatia and Anr (2002) 1 Recent Service Judgments 32*: The principle laid down in this judgment was held to be contrary to the judgment of this Court in Krishan Kumar Vij.

✓ Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Krishan Kumar Vij & Anr (2010) 8 SCC 701*: The Court relied on this judgment to hold that the legal fiction created by the second circular which deemed certain promoted employees as direct recruits, applied only to those who had passed both parts of the AMIE examination and were promoted against posts reserved for that category.

✓ Kunhayammed & Ors v. State Of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359*: The Court relied on this case to state that the dismissal of special leave petitions is of no consequence on the question of law.

The Court quoted the following from Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Krishan Kumar Vij & Anr (2010) 8 SCC 701:

“22. We have already mentioned hereinabove with regard to
Clause 2 of the 1990 Order read with Regulation 9 which restricts
the benefit only to directly recruited Assistant Engineers/Assistant
Executive Engineers, meaning thereby that one must possess the
requisite qualification as prescribed under the Regulations, then
only the benefit would accrue to the employee, not otherwise.
The Note appended thereto clearly stipulates that even those
employees who were promoted under Regulation 7( a)(ii) read
with Regulation 10(4) shall be deemed t o have been appointed
by direct recruitment. This legal fiction is limited. It is applicable
only to those employees who have been promoted in conformity
with the provisions contained in Clause 4. Thus, the employees
who had passed both Parts (A) and (B) o f the AMIE examination
and were promoted against 9% posts reserved for that class were
fictionally treated as direct recruits.”

“23. The 1990 Order contemplates that it is to be followed as per
regulation which provides 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
can they be treated on a par with the direct recruits. There was a
purpose for 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.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of the two circulars issued by the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) and the relevant service regulations. The Court emphasized that the First Circular applied to promoted employees, while the Second Circular was specifically for directly recruited employees. The Court also focused on the fact that the appellants were promoted within 9 or 16 years of their initial appointment, disqualifying them from the time-bound promotional scale as per the First Circular. The court also considered the fact that the legal fiction created by the second circular which deemed certain promoted employees as direct recruits, applied only to those who had passed both parts of the AMIE examination and were promoted against posts reserved for that category.

The Court also emphasized the principle that unequals cannot be treated as equals, and that the promoted employees cannot be treated at par with direct recruits.

Fact:Law Ratio

Key Takeaways

• Promoted employees are not automatically entitled to the same time-bound promotional scales as directly recruited employees.
• Time-bound promotional schemes must be interpreted strictly according to the terms of the relevant circulars and regulations.
• Legal fictions are limited in scope and cannot be extended beyond their intended purpose.
• The principle of equality does not mean that unequals should be treated as equals.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that promoted employees are not automatically entitled to the same time-bound promotional scales as directly recruited employees. The court upheld the principle that unequals cannot be treated as equals. This case reaffirms the position of law laid down in Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Krishan Kumar Vij & Anr (2010) 8 SCC 701, that time-bound promotional scales are applicable only to directly recruited Assistant Engineers and those promoted under Regulation 7(a)(ii) read with Regulation 10(4) who had passed both parts (A) and (B) of the AMIE examination.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that promoted Assistant Engineers of the Punjab State Electricity Board are not entitled to the same time-bound promotional scales as their directly recruited counterparts. The Court’s decision was based on the specific terms of the circulars and regulations governing the service conditions of the employees and the principle that unequals cannot be treated as equals.