AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Supreme Court Judgments


Latest Supreme Court of India Judgments 2018

Subscribe

RSS Feed img






Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. V.N. Sharma [1994] INSC 449 (5 September 1994)

Ramaswamy, K. Ramaswamy, K. Venkatachala N. (J)

CITATION: 1995 SCC Supl. (1) 20 1994 SCALE (4)605

ACT:

HEAD NOTE:

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent is entitled to two advance increments which were granted by the + From the Judgment and Order dated 31-1-1994 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 3081 of 1993 21 High Court in Civil WP No. 3081 of 1993 dated 31-1-1994.

The appellant made statutory regulations titled the Punjab State Electricity Board (Revised Pay) Regulations, 1988 which have come into force on 1-1-1986. As Rule 3 of the Regulations which says that in these regulations, unless anything repugnant in the subject or context, the regulations have the overriding effect. Under Regulation 8 it is provided fixation of the pay on promotion thus:

Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations, in case of promotion to a higher post effected after the date of publication of this order, the benefit of minimum two increments shall be given while fixing the pay in the scale of the higher post. The next increment in the scale of the higher post shall be allowed after the completion of twelve months' qualifying service in that scale under the rules.

These regulations are prospective in operation and those who have been qualified and promoted after the regulations have come into force alone are entitled to two advance increments and not those who have been promoted earlier to the date the regulations have come into force. The non-obstante clause and also Regulation 3 clearly postulate that if there is any inconsistency, then the regulation shall prevail over any other rules. In this statutory background the High Court is clearly in error in allowing the benefits to the respondent.

But however since respondent had already retired from service we decline to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. The civil appeal is accordingly disposed of.

No costs.

 Back


 



Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered by nubia  |  driven by neosys