Punjab State Electricity Board Pay Dispute: Supreme Court Rules on Time-Bound Promotional Scale

The case at hand involves a dispute regarding the entitlement of promoted Assistant Engineers to time-bound promotional scales within the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB). The appellants, Inderjit Singh Sodhi and Others, filed an appeal against the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order that denied their claim for 9/16 years’ time-bound promotional scale. The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the distinction between directly recruited and promoted employees in matters of pay benefits.

Background of the Case

The appellants, who were working as Assistant Engineers, had initially been promoted from the position of Junior Engineers. Their employment was governed by the Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil) Regulations, 1965. Under Regulation 7, the post of Assistant Engineer could be filled through:

• Direct recruitment under Regulation 9
• Promotion under Regulation 10
• Transfer from another government or government undertaking

According to these regulations, directly recruited Assistant Engineers were required to hold a BE in Civil Engineering. However, serving Section Officers with three or four-year diplomas in Civil Engineering and at least 12 years of experience were also eligible to apply for the post.

The Core Dispute

The appellants claimed parity with two individuals, Kirpal Singh Mangat and Raj Kumar Garg, who had been granted time-bound promotional scales despite being junior to them. The appellants argued that they should be entitled to the same benefit, as they were promoted to the same post.

However, a crucial distinction existed: Mangat and Garg were appointed directly as Assistant Engineers through open recruitment, whereas the appellants were promoted internally after serving as Junior Engineers. The PSEB rejected their request, prompting the appellants to file a writ petition.

Legal Proceedings

The Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled in favor of the appellants, granting them the time-bound promotional scale. However, on appeal, the Division Bench set aside this order, reasoning that directly recruited Assistant Engineers were subject to different regulations regarding pay scales.

Arguments of the Appellants

The appellants argued:

• They had worked for many years and had been promoted to Assistant Engineers through internal promotion.
• Their juniors, who were directly recruited, were receiving better pay scales due to time-bound promotional increments, creating an unfair disparity.
• The principles of equal pay for equal work should be applied.

Arguments of the Respondents

The Punjab State Electricity Board countered:

• The time-bound promotional scale was applicable only to directly recruited Assistant Engineers as per the regulations.
• Promoted employees had already received career progression through internal promotions.
• The case of the appellants was different from that of Mangat and Garg because they had entered through a different channel.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court examined the relevant rules and past judgments, including Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Krishan Kumar Vij & Anr., which had dealt with a similar issue.

It emphasized that under the First and Second Circulars issued by the PSEB:

• Employees who had not been promoted within 9 years of their initial recruitment were entitled to time-bound promotional scales.
• However, if an employee had received a promotion within 9 years, they were not entitled to additional increments.
• Since the appellants were promoted within the stipulated timeframe, they could not claim parity with directly recruited Assistant Engineers.

Key Observations by the Court

The Court held:

“In terms of the First and Second Circulars, the employees of the Board who have not earned promotion within 9 years from their initial recruitment are entitled to time-bound promotional scale. If they have been promoted within the initial 9 years, the next promotion cannot be granted to them after completion of 3 years.”

It further noted:

“The appellants, being promoted employees, cannot claim time-bound promotional benefits on par with directly recruited employees. The case of Krishan Kumar Vij provides a direct precedent.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision and dismissed the appeals. It ruled that the appellants were not entitled to the time-bound promotional scale because:

• They had been promoted within 9 years, making them ineligible under the First Circular.
• Their case was distinct from that of directly recruited Assistant Engineers.
• Granting them the requested benefits would violate the principle of treating unequals as equals.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces that employees entering a service through different channels cannot always claim parity in pay and promotions. The ruling clarifies the application of time-bound promotional scales within PSEB, ensuring that such benefits are granted strictly per the applicable regulations.

Petitioner Name: Inderjit Singh Sodhi and Others.
Respondent Name: The Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board and Another.
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Place Of Incident: Punjab.
Judgment Date: 03-12-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Inderjit Singh Sodhi vs The Chairman, Punjab Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 03-12-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category